linux-next: manual merge of the at91 tree with the at91-fixes tree

linux-next: manual merge of the at91 tree with the at91-fixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1190 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the at91 tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c

between commit:

  ba5e60c9b75d ("arm/mach-at91/pm : fix possible object reference leak")

from the at91-fixes tree and commit:

  c3f5b8fde71f ("ARM: at91: pm: introduce at91_soc_pm structure")

from the at91 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
index 2a757dcaa1a5,5571658b3c46..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
@@@ -620,10 -676,8 +676,10 @@@ static int __init at91_pm_backup_init(v
  	return 0;
  
  securam_fail:
 +	put_device(&pdev->dev);
 +securam_fail_no_ref_dev:
- 	iounmap(pm_data.sfrbu);
- 	pm_data.sfrbu = NULL;
+ 	iounmap(soc_pm.data.sfrbu);
+ 	soc_pm.data.sfrbu = NULL;
  	return ret;
  }
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the at91 tree with the at91-fixes tree

[Ludovic Desroches]

Hi Stephen,

On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 09:15:19AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the at91 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ba5e60c9b75d ("arm/mach-at91/pm : fix possible object reference leak")
> 
> from the at91-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   c3f5b8fde71f ("ARM: at91: pm: introduce at91_soc_pm structure")
> 
> from the at91 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> index 2a757dcaa1a5,5571658b3c46..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> @@@ -620,10 -676,8 +676,10 @@@ static int __init at91_pm_backup_init(v
>   	return 0;
>   
>   securam_fail:
>  +	put_device(&pdev->dev);
>  +securam_fail_no_ref_dev:
> - 	iounmap(pm_data.sfrbu);
> - 	pm_data.sfrbu = NULL;
> + 	iounmap(soc_pm.data.sfrbu);
> + 	soc_pm.data.sfrbu = NULL;
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   

Resolution sounds good.

Thanks

Ludovic