linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the char-misc.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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20211206161734.GA4141317@maple.netwinder.org>
Date:   Mon, 6 Dec 2021 11:17:34 -0500
From:   Ralph Siemsen <ralph.siemsen@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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 char-misc tree with the
 char-misc.current tree

On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 03:43:11PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 02:49:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   9a626577398c ("nvmem: eeprom: at25: fix FRAM byte_len")

This was my original patch from Nov 8th.

>>   5b557298d7d0 ("misc: at25: Make driver OF independent again")
>>   a692fc39bf90 ("misc: at25: Don't copy garbage to the at25->chip in FRAM case")
>>   58589a75bba9 ("misc: at25: Check proper value of chip length in FRAM case")
>>   51902c1212fe ("misc: at25: Use at25->chip instead of local chip everywhere in ->probe()")
>> (and probably more)

These are newer versions and some cleanups from Andy. I was not aware of 
this work going on. I'm surprised at25 is getting so much attention ;-)

>> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.
>
>The result from char-misc.current should be used as is and I guess it's
>what you have done, thanks!

Agreed - Andy's version is cleaner, and includes my fixes. I've run some 
quick tests locally and all seems to be working as expected.

Regards,
Ralph