netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm-soc 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: <4384645.F021K1OoaK@wuerfel>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:56:21 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Pramod Kumar <pramod.kumar@...adcom.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Yendapally Reddy Dhananjaya Reddy 
	<yendapally.reddy@...adcom.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	Jon Mason <jon.mason@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the arm-soc tree

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:18:39 AM CEST Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2-svk.dts
>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   97b1504a30b3 ("arm64: dts: enable pinctrl for Broadcom NS2 SoC")
>   5dcc9c7618df ("arm64: dts: NS2: Add CCI-400 PMU support")
> 
> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
> 
>   5f1a067bfa0a ("dt: mdio-mux: Add mdio multiplexer driver node")
> 
> from the net-next 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.

Looks good to me, thanks!

I don't see a good way to resolve the conflict before the merge window,
but it's simple enough that we can just send it this way and let
Linus handle it.

	Arnd