linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the drivers-x86 tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <X/v9bAznWVNMupY7@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 08:25:32 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>,
        Russ Weight <russell.h.weight@...el.com>,
        Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>, Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the
 drivers-x86 tree

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:08:51PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
>   scripts/mod/devicetable-offsets.c
>   scripts/mod/file2alias.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   eb0e90a82098 ("platform/surface: aggregator: Add dedicated bus and device type")
> 
> from the drivers-x86 tree and commits:
> 
>   9326eecd9365 ("fpga: dfl: move dfl_device_id to mod_devicetable.h")
>   4a224acec597 ("fpga: dfl: add dfl bus support to MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE()")
> 
> from the char-misc tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

Thanks, this looks correct, and expected as new subsystems add
auto-loading capabilities at the same time.

greg k-h