linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the fpga tree with the tty 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: <Y9AKa/MU2EJPgQXS@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:42:19 +0800
From:   Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, greg@...ah.com
Cc:     Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>,
        Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the fpga tree with the tty tree

On 2023-01-23 at 12:45:02 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the fpga tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   drivers/fpga/dfl.c
>   drivers/fpga/dfl.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4747ab89b4a6 ("fpga: dfl: add basic support for DFHv1")
> 
> from the tty tree and commits:
> 
>   3afe90d5b7a4 ("fpga: dfl: kernel-doc corrections")
>   e5541aae450e ("fpga: dfl: more kernel-doc corrections")
> 
> from the fpga tree.


Hi Greg:

I could re-apply the 2 FPGA patches based on the following series on
tty-next tree:

46879f71061a ("Documentation: fpga: dfl: Add documentation for DFHv1")
0926d8d52d42 ("fpga: dfl: Add DFHv1 Register Definitions")
4747ab89b4a6 ("fpga: dfl: add basic support for DFHv1")
e34a79d0b320 ("tty: serial: 8250: add DFL bus driver for Altera 16550")

Then there will be no conflict for my pull request.

Thanks,
Yilun

> 
> I fixed it up (overlapping fixes, I used the former 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell