linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the iio-fixes 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <22f9dbb6-ba5e-4c85-8aa2-6090008e7da4@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:17:30 +0200
From: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the iio-fixes
 tree

On 23/10/2024 05:10, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/iio/light/veml6030.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   de9981636774 ("iio: light: veml6030: fix microlux value calculation")
> 
> from the iio-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   ed59fc90f38a ("iio: light: veml6030: drop processed info for white channel")
> 
> from the char-misc tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the latter removed the line updated by the former) 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.
> 


Hi Stephen,

I doubled checked the status of the driver in linux-next, and everything
looks as it should: the first commit applied as a single chunk, as its
second chunk affects lines that the second commit removed.

Thank you for fixing it up.

Best regards,
Javier Carrasco