linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54c92bbe-33fa-35ba-dd7f-14a28dcf758a@hartkopp.net>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 08:28:21 +0100
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hello Stephen,

On 10.11.22 00:25, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/net/can/pch_can.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    ae64438be192 ("can: dev: fix skb drop check")
> 
> from the net tree and commit:
> 
>    1dd1b521be85 ("can: remove obsolete PCH CAN driver")
> 
> from the net-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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.
> 

Yes, this is known.

The removal of the PCH CAN driver missed the last net-next phase for 
Linux 6.1 by some hours and therefore showed up relatively early in the 
net-next for 6.2.

Maybe we should generally try to commit "complete removals" of drivers 
preferably at the end of a -next phase which would have omitted this 
conflict.

Thanks for your work!

Best regards,
Oliver