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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240410113714.10cf2daf@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:37:14 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, Oded Gabbay
 <ogabbay@...nel.org>, Thomas Hellström
 <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, Joonas Lahtinen
 <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
Cc: DRM XE List <intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>, 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>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the drm-xe tree with the drm-intel tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h

between commits:

  ded402c7a044 ("drm/i915: move skl_preferred_vco_freq to display substruct")
  8219ab6d6f0d ("drm/i915: move max_dotclk_freq to display substruct")
  9aad73290686 ("drm/i915: move display_irqs_enabled to display substruct")
  f25ae90ff9c6 ("drm/i915: move de_irq_mask to display substruct")
  860cefce5ebe ("drm/i915: move pipestat_irq_mask to display substruct")

from the drm-intel tree and commit:

  070f8fd6c654 ("drm/xe: remove unused struct xe_device members")

from the drm-xe tree.

I fixed it up (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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ