linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-misc tree with the drm-misc-fixes 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: <5520db7e-ea29-b610-17e3-de596911d26c@amd.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:33:04 +0200
From:   Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Cc:     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 drm-misc tree with the
 drm-misc-fixes tree

Am 14.04.22 um 01:47 schrieb Stephen Rothwell:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-misc tree got a conflict in:
>
>    drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_sync.c
>
> between commit:
>
>    022074918042 ("drm/radeon: fix logic inversion in radeon_sync_resv")
>
> from the drm-misc-fixes tree and commit:
>
>    7bc80a5462c3 ("dma-buf: add enum dma_resv_usage v4")
>
> from the drm-misc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.

I still need to double check the result in linux-next, but that doesn't 
sounds right.

The missing "!" needs to be carried into the new function call.

drm-tip should have the right solution to this merge conflict.

Thanks,
Christian.

> 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.
>