linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with the drm 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: <87zg0xb087.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 05 Oct 2023 17:41:28 +0300
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>
Cc:     Intel Graphics <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        DRI <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-intel tree with the drm tree

On Tue, 03 Oct 2023, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drm-intel tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>
> between commits:
>
>   c9517783060a ("drm/i915/dg2: Drop Wa_16011777198")
>   5a213086a025 ("drm/i915: Eliminate IS_MTL_GRAPHICS_STEP")
>   81af8abe6513 ("drm/i915: Eliminate IS_MTL_MEDIA_STEP")
>
> from the drm tree and commits:
>
>   e50086f3d313 ("drm/i915/dg2: Drop pre-production display workarounds")
>   213454b3af2e ("drm/i915: Eliminate IS_MTL_DISPLAY_STEP")
>
> from the drm-intel 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.

Should be fixed now.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel