linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip 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:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 22:53:41 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip
 tree

On 12.4.2017 8:46, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   drivers/block/nbd.c
>   drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c
>   net/core/dev.c
>   net/core/sock.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   717a94b5fc70 ("sched/core: Remove 'task' parameter and rename tsk_restore_flags() to current_restore_flags()")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>   61d5ad5b2e8a ("treewide: convert PF_MEMALLOC manipulations to new helpers")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.

Yeah, the first patch from Neil renames a function (as its subject says) and the
second patch from me converts most of its users to new helpers specific to the
PF_MEMALLOC flags.

> I fixed it up (the latter is just a superset of the former, so I used

It's not a complete superset though, more on that below.

> that) 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.

Hmm I could redo my patch on top of Neil's patch, but then Andrew would have to
carry Neil's patch as well just to have a working mmotm? And then make sure to
send my patch (but not Neil's) only after the tip tree is pulled? Would that
work for the maintainers involved?

> It looks like there may be more instances that the latter patch should
> update.

I see two remaining instances of current_restore_flags(). One in __do_softirq()
is even for PF_MEMALLOC, but there the flag is cleared first and then set back,
which is opposite of the common case that my helpers provide. The other in nfsd
is for PF_LESS_THROTTLE which is not common enough to earn own helpers yet. IIRC
Neil originally wanted to add a new one?