linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sound-asoc tree with the sound-current 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2111291913470.3554566@eliteleevi.tm.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:16:35 +0200 (EET)
From:   Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
cc:     Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sound-asoc tree with the
 sound-current tree

Hi,

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, Takashi Iwai wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:29:36 +0100, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> > the asoc for-5.17 branch does have all the needed changes and the 
> > linux-next merged version seems ok. We've already sent many further 
> > changes that touch this area of code to asoc for-5.17. Let me know if some 
> 
> The question is rather whether this discrepancy would cause a problem
> for further developments.  If back-merging 5.16 stuff makes things
> easier, it should be done so.  OTOH, if it's just for resolving the
> conflict in the final tree, we can leave it.

I believe it's the latter case, it would be just for resolving conflict
in the final tree. The patches we have queued up for 5.17 but not yet 
sent, all apply cleanly on top of asoc for-5.17, so back-merge is not 
needed for this.

Br, Kai