linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the spacemit 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250917123045-GYA1265885@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 20:30:45 +0800
From: Yixun Lan <dlan@...too.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Vivian Wang <wangruikang@...as.ac.cn>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Guodong Xu <guodong@...cstar.com>,
	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 net-next tree with the spacemit
 tree

Hi Mark,

On 13:03 Wed 17 Sep     , Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 07:48:34PM +0800, Vivian Wang wrote:
> 
> > Just FYI, Yixun has proposed for net-next to back out of the DTS changes
> > and taking them up through the spacemit tree instead [1], resolving the
> > conflicts in the spacemit tree. This would certainly mean less headaches
> > while managing pull requests, as well as allowing Yixun to take care of
> > code style concerns like node order. However, I do not know what the
> > norms here are.
> 
> Thanks.  They're pretty trivial conflicts so I'm not sure it's critical,
> though like you say node order might easily end up the wrong way round
> depending on how the conflict resolution gets done.

Thanks for the help and fixing this, but ..

If it's possible to revert the DT patch 3-5, then I'd be happy to take,
but if this is too much job, e.g. the net-next's main branch is imuutable
and reverting it will cause too much trouble, then I'm fine with current
solution - carry the fix via net-next tree..

But please use commit: 0f084b221e2c5ba16eca85b3d2497f9486bd0329 of
https://github.com/spacemit-com/linux/tree/k1/dt-for-next as the merge
parent, which I'm about to send to Arnd (the SoC tree)

BTW, The 'for-next' branch is a merged branch contains clock and DT patches
for SpacemiT SoC tree's which isn't immutable..

Let me know what I should proceed, thank you

-- 
Yixun Lan (dlan)