linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the battery tree with the leds-lj 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: <66a6aa98-009f-42c5-84dc-4c763d484472@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 10:07:23 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the battery tree with the leds-lj
 tree

Hi Stephen,

On 7/9/24 5:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the battery tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/leds.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6b0d3355e5a5 ("leds: class: Add flag to avoid automatic renaming of LED devices")
> 
> from the leds-lj tree and commit:
> 
>   5607ca92e627 ("leds: core: Add led_mc_set_brightness() function")
> 
> from the battery tree.
> 
> I assume that the bit number valuse don;t actually matter, right?

Correct, which bit is used for which flag does not matter.

> 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.

Thank you.

Regards,

Hans