lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the staging.current tree
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 11:14:39AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:01:21 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:14:58AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:02:12 +1000
> > > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:
> > > >
> > > > drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c
> > > >
> > > > between commit:
> > > >
> > > > 20ea39ef9f2f ("iio: Fix scan mask selection")
> > > >
> > > > from the staging.current tree and commit:
> > > >
> > > > 3862828a903d ("iio: buffer: Switch to bitmap_zalloc()")
> > > >
> > > > from the staging tree.
> > > >
> > > > I fixed it up (I just used the staging tree version) 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.
> > > >
> > > Thanks Stephen,
> > >
> > > That is the correct resolution.
> >
> > I think it still misses the following fix:

> Is that actually a problem given it's copied over from buffer->scan_mask just after allocation?
> The two masks are the same length so I don't think we have a problem with this one.
> Am I missing something?

Hmm... I didn't get why the commit 20ea39ef9f2f fixes anything.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-08 12:35    [W:0.062 / U:1.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site