linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the devicetree tree with the net-next, stm32 trees

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]

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:28:21 +0200
From: Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Paolo
 Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        "Arnd
 Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gatien Chevallier
	<gatien.chevallier@...s.st.com>,
        "Kory Maincent (Dent Project)"
	<kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the devicetree tree with the
 net-next, stm32 trees

Hi Stephen

On 4/24/24 05:40, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/of/property.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>    6a15368c1c6d ("of: property: fw_devlink: Add support for "access-controller"")
>    93c0d8c0ac30 ("of: property: Add fw_devlink support for pse parent")
> 
> from the net-next, stm32 trees and commit:
> 
>    669430b183fc ("of: property: fw_devlink: Add support for "power-supplies" binding")
> 
> from the devicetree 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.
> 

After remark from Saravana I just updated the stm32-next branch which 
impact part of code mentioned above. I think you should get a merge 
conflict on the next stm32-next merge into linux-next.

I will warn Arnd B. about those conflicts in my next PR.

regards
Alex