On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:34:37 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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.shevche...@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 <s...@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.
>
Good point. I'm don't think it ever did.
Alex, any thoughts?
Jonathan
