From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49EB6C43142 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:25:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E66208A2 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:25:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="zKAAAtx/" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E4E66208A2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729770AbeGaIDm (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2018 04:03:42 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44210 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727308AbeGaIDm (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jul 2018 04:03:42 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8CAA208A6; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 06:25:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1533018301; bh=yAj0ixBW9aQK03dOHZYou3W2YheWE7EFc0Ubcm1j8EI=; h=In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=zKAAAtx/xFBG0skwZj4h7CjMeBkZ9YfmrMsPa8f2QmFDr1O7ZT6Q45IC/0AVPDHf2 7s97k6DKejRP80ceEqk8A328iG28GTzEn4HHuSehVrRFK3x8ZNUQmfnGRs94zcpYtz vVpnRKg98dJ/tgp0WAwo80Cox95JOUaWqJVGdSkE= Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id t25-v6so1779183wmi.3; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:25:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlGyHcGbDPgyCIYsX5jAAVqZrOeBsnlQpcaWP1rN+r+JInOB6p5p iNinFSkYon+Bnh2zPjTSUxaD9AN3yHOjXlKKdXA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeDMKEmxAYOjQ20TT+99b39QmktiV485/vSjoBGRA/++tBfrxLZEwENAv/MInp+f9CCFOgpE8winOWzkEE8qKM= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9c56:: with SMTP id f83-v6mr1218691wme.135.1533018299158; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:24:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:adf:9141:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:24:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180730132253.33633f56@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20180730132253.33633f56@canb.auug.org.au> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:24:58 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the crypto tree with the net-next tree To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Herbert Xu , David Miller , Networking , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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