From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tpmdd tree with Linus' tree Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:15:12 +0300 Message-ID: <1507925712.29065.0.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20171011150107.vft64nx3kccndjlj@sirena.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:13610 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751394AbdJMUPR (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:15:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20171011150107.vft64nx3kccndjlj@sirena.co.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mark Brown , Hamza Attak , James Morris Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 16:01 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tpmdd tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c > > between commit: > > 9f3fc7bcddcb51 ("tpm: replace msleep() with usleep_range() in TPM 1.2/2.0 generic drivers") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 217d4dfa87415e ("tpm: Use dynamic delay to wait for TPM 2.0 self test result") > > from the tpmdd 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. > > diff --cc drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c > index e1a41b788f08,f40d20671a78..000000000000 > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c > @@@ -900,6 -867,10 +867,11 @@@ static int tpm2_do_selftest(struct tpm_ > break; > > tpm_msleep(delay_msec); > ++ > + duration -= delay_msec; > + > + /* wait longer the next round */ > + delay_msec *= 2; > } > > return rc; I guess this is related to that I missed the email from James to LSM that the branch that I should follow was updated. Apologies. /Jarkko