linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree with the i2c 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: <9918a4e1-e3fa-4577-ac06-46efeab12507@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:46:24 +0300
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
 Jai Luthra <jai.luthra@...asonboard.com>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Romain Gantois <romain.gantois@...tlin.com>,
 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
 Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the v4l-dvb tree with the i2c tree

Hi,

On 28/04/2025 04:30, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:22:00 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:49:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the v4l-dvb tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>    drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c
>>>
>>> between commits:
>>>
>>>    3ec29d51b546 ("media: i2c: ds90ub960: Protect alias_use_mask with a mutex")
>>>    818bd489f137 ("i2c: use client addresses directly in ATR interface")
>>>
>>> from the i2c tree and commits:
>>>
>>>    24868501a744 ("media: i2c: ds90ub9xx: Add err parameter to read/write funcs")
>>>    2ca499384e98 ("media: i2c: ds90ub960: Add RX port iteration support")
>>>
>>> from the v4l-dvb 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.
>>
>> The actual resolution is below ...
> 
> I hit the wrong key :-(   Resolution below.

I came up with the same resolution, so looks correct to me.

  Tomi