netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the crypto tree with the net-next 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:24:58 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the crypto tree with the net-next tree

Hi All,

The resolution looks correct. The other way would be to amend the
commit 5d258b48efbd ("net: ethernet: Use existing define with
polynomial") in crypto tree and remove changes to freescale drivers.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On 30 July 2018 at 05:22, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the crypto tree got conflicts in:
>
>   drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fec_main.c
>   drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/mac-fec.c
>
> between commits:
>
>   16f6e9835bcd ("net: ethernet: freescale: Use generic CRC32 implementation")
>   d805f6a86829 ("net: ethernet: fs-enet: Use generic CRC32 implementation")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
>   5d258b48efbd ("net: ethernet: Use existing define with polynomial")
>
> from the crypto tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the net-next tree versions (but kept the rmeoval
> of the CRC32_POLY and FEC_CRC_POLY defines) 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell