linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the FIXME 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:32:14 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the FIXME tree

Hi Mark,

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:10:35 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/s390/include/asm/spinlock.h
> 
> between a series of commits adding wait queuing to s390 spinlocks
> from the s390 tree:
> 
> eb3b7b848fb3dd00f7a57d633 s390/rwlock: introduce rwlock wait queueing
> b96f7d881ad94203e997cd2aa s390/spinlock: introduce spinlock wait queueing
> 8153380379ecc8381f6d55f64 s390/spinlock: use the cpu number +1 as spinlock value
> 
> and Will's series of commits removing dummy implementations of spinlock
> related things from the tip tree:
> 
> a4c1887d4c1462b0ec5a8989f locking/arch: Remove dummy arch_{read,spin,write}_lock_flags() implementations
> 0160fb177d484367e041ac251 locking/arch: Remove dummy arch_{read,spin,write}_relax() implementations
> a8a217c22116eff6c120d753c locking/core: Remove {read,spin,write}_can_lock()
> 
> I'm don't feel confident I can resolve this conflict sensibly without
> taking too long so I've used the tip tree from yesterday.

Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell