linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the tip 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: <69d0c6c6-ed82-410c-9102-09ed3b95ae05@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:54:05 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kselftest tree with the tip tree

On 4/11/24 23:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kselftest tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    tools/testing/selftests/timers/valid-adjtimex.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    076361362122 ("selftests: timers: Fix valid-adjtimex signed left-shift undefined behavior")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>    8e222dcf92a8 ("selftests: timers: Fix valid-adjtimex signed left-shift undefined behavior")
> 
> from the kselftest tree.
> 

Thank you. I dropped 8e222dcf92a8 from linux-kselftest next

> Slightly different versions of the same patch (whitespace differences).
> 
> I fixed it up (I (arbitrarily) 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.
> 

thanks,
-- Shuah