linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the accel tree with Linus' 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 13:26:05 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Oded Gabbay <ogabbay@...nel.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Dafna Hirschfeld
 <dhirschfeld@...ana.ai>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the accel tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the accel tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/accel/habanalabs/common/device.c

between commits:

  3652117f8548 ("eventfd: simplify eventfd_signal()")
  b7638ad0c780 ("eventfd: make eventfd_signal{_mask}() void")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  1436a2242aa5 ("accel/habanalabs: check failure of eventfd_signal")

from the accel tree.

I fixed it up (I just 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped