linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perf/uprobes] uprobes, mm, x86: Add the ability to install and remove uprobes breakpoints

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:	Mon, 21 May 2012 19:27:00 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, peterz@...radead.org, anton@...hat.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	jkenisto@...ibm.com, andi@...stfloor.org, hch@...radead.org,
	ananth@...ibm.com, vda.linux@...glemail.com,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, acme@...radead.org,
	srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, roland@...k.frob.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/uprobes] uprobes, mm, x86: Add the ability to install
 and remove uprobes breakpoints

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:16:18 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:13:23 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:00:28 -0700
> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Morton
> > > <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > hm, we seem to have conflicting commits between mainline and linux-next.
> > > > During the merge window. __Again. __Nobody knows why this happens.
> > > 
> > > I didn't have my trivial cleanup branches in linux-next, I'm afraid.
> > 
> > Well, it's a broader issue than that.  I often see a large number of
> > rejects when syncing mainline with linux-next during the merge window. 
> > Right now:
> 
> Some of that is because your patch series is based on the end of
> linux-next and part way through the merge window only some of that has
> been merged by Linus.  Also some of it gets rebased before Linus is asked
> to pull (a real pain) - there hasn't been much of that (yet) this merge
> window (but its early days :-().  Also, sometimes Linus' merge
> resolutions are different to mine.
> 
> I have been meaning to talk to you about basing the majority of your
> patch series on Linus' tree.  This would give it mush greater stability
> and would make the merge resolution my problem (and Linus', of course).

Confused.  None of those conflicts have anything to do with the -mm
patches: the only trees involved there are mainline and
trees-in-next-other-than-mm.

> There will be bits that may need to be based on other work in linux-next,
> but I suspect that it is not very much.

Well, there are a number of reasons why I base off linux-next.  To see
whether others have merged patches which I have merged (and, sometimes,
missed later fixes to them).  Explicit fixes against -next material. 
To get visibility into upcoming merge problems.  And so that I and
others test -next too.

Basing -mm on next is never a problem (for me).  What is a problem is
the mess which happens when people merge things into mainline which are
(I assume) either slightly different from what they merged in -next or
which never were in -next at all.

That's guessing - it's a long time since I sat down and worked out exactly
what is causing this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/