linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xilinx tree with the ti 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: <20260120122340.ihocaulsyli54h4h@talcum>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 06:23:40 -0600
From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xilinx tree with the ti tree

On 15:21-20260119, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 04:17:46PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> 
> > I have sent merge request to Arnd today. My 2 patches are in Linux-next for
> > a while that's why it is new change coming from that second tree.
> 
> The merge order is fixed so it's just a question of which tree was
> already merged which shows as the conflicting tree.

Thanks Michal, Mark,

Yep, I did anticipate a minor conflict here - headsup: I have had to
squash patches today based on additional comments, but the conflict
resolution should be the same. Will add the note in my merge request.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
https://ti.com/opensource