linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-renesas tree with the pinctrl 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: <CAMuHMdWQFYZS8qACEsaZvMEuvrVY3Ag0pJBi1SE6Kkj8tTMbrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2023 13:26:02 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pinctrl-renesas tree with the
 pinctrl tree

Hi Stephen,

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 8:08 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the pinctrl-renesas tree got conflicts in:
>
>   drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rza2.c
>   drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
>   drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzv2m.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   060f03e95454 ("pinctrl: Explicitly include correct DT includes")
>
> from the pinctrl tree and commits:
>
>   848f700dabda ("pinctrl: renesas: rzg2l: Fix NULL pointer dereference in rzg2l_dt_subnode_to_map()")
>   ca63f2ef6a16 ("pinctrl: renesas: rzv2m: Fix NULL pointer dereference in rzv2m_dt_subnode_to_map()")
>   1eb1e00e5d99 ("pinctrl: renesas: rza2: Add lock around pinctrl_generic{{add,remove}_group,{add,remove}_function}")
>
> from the pinctrl-renesas 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.

The resolution LGTM. Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds