linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-next tree with the wireless 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: <20241031132021.6c7eedb2@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:20:21 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, Johannes Berg
 <johannes@...solutions.net>, Wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
 Aditya Kumar Singh <quic_adisi@...cinc.com>, Johannes Berg
 <johannes.berg@...el.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Miri Korenblit
 <miriam.rachel.korenblit@...el.com>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-next tree with the
 wireless tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:36:21 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/mld-mac80211.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   cbe84e9ad5e2 ("wifi: iwlwifi: mvm: really send iwl_txpower_constraints_cmd")
> 
> from the wireless tree and commit:
> 
>   188a1bf89432 ("wifi: mac80211: re-order assigning channel in activate links")
> 
> from the wireless-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the latter removed some code that the former moved some
> other cde around - so I effectively just used the latter) 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.

This is now a conflict between the net tree and the net-next tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped