linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the openrisc tree with Linus' 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: <20210125010446.GS2002709@lianli.shorne-pla.net>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:04:46 +0900
From:   Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the openrisc tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:05:06AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the openrisc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/soc/litex/litex_soc_ctrl.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e6dc077b7dff ("soc: litex: Fix compile warning when device tree is not configured")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   3706f9f76a4f ("drivers/soc/litex: Add restart handler")
> 
> from the openrisc 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.

Hi Stephen,

Thank's I knew about this conflict but I was not sure the best way to handle, I
was/am going to rebase the openrisc/for-next branch onto 5.11-rc5 once released.
I will resolve the conflict during the rebase so you should be able to drop the
conflict patch after that.

The issue is I had a fix that went straight to 5.11.  Should I usually put these
kind of fixes on my for-next and my fixes branches in parallel, that way I can
resolve conflicts on for-next before hand?

I don't usually do that as in my mind for next is for 5.12 and fixes for 5.11 go
straight to 5.11.  Also, I don't like putting the same patch in 2 queues.  But
if I got any advice on how to avoid this in the future it would be appreciated.

Thank you,

-Stafford