linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the vhost tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:05:57 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the vhost
 tree

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 05:50:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:46:15 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 04:59:08PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   mm/balloon_compaction.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   0b5ffdb4f7c6 ("balloon: fix page list locking")
> > > 
> > > from the vhost tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   0c983ec0c078 ("virtio_balloon: fix race between migration and ballooning")
> > > 
> > > from the akpm-current tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (I think that the former is a superset of the latter, so
> > > I used that, completely reversing the latter patch) and can carry the
> > > fix as necessary (no action is required).  
> > 
> > Oops, it isn't.
> > 
> > Andrew, your tree seems to still carry original patch by Minchan Kim:
> > 
> > 0c983ec0c078ed5d5c219cf97af06364e7a8e19f
> > 
> > I reported on list that it has a deadlock:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.stable/159208
> > 
> > I think it should be reverted and my patch applied - it's in my tree
> > but if you prefer it in yours instead, please let me know.
> 
> That is what I effectively did in today's tree.

Ouch, looks like I can't read. Somehow I misread that and assumed the
reverse, fetched next-20160107 and saw the context there is wrong, but I
did not dig deeper.  It seems that I was just hasty, and todays tree
isn't tagged yet.

Thanks!

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au
> \