linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the powerpc 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: <CAPcyv4hAGXWD0OS_yB3uc-fk7ami65q1zB4BuxqkhWggn1cNEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 07:55:20 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shivaprasad G Bhat <sbhat@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the powerpc tree

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 4:21 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
>
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   bbbca72352bb ("powerpc/papr_scm: Implement initial support for injecting smart errors")
> >
> > from the powerpc tree and commit:
> >
> >   4c08d4bbc089 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Add perf interface support")
> >
> > from the nvdimm 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, resolution looks obviously correct.
>
> Dan, this seems benign to me, I don't think any further action is
> required other than mentioning it to Linus.

Yes, it looks ok to me.