linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: linux-next: manual merge of the luto-misc 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, 21 Jan 2015 07:16:42 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: Fwd: linux-next: manual merge of the luto-misc tree with the tip
 tree


* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Ingo and Thomas-
> >> >>
> >> >> There's a trivial conflict in the pull request I sent last week.
> >> >
> >> > This is your x86 entry code rework pull request, right? The -tip
> >> > tree now has the RCU commit it depends on, so could you please
> >> > rebase it on top of tip:core/rcu so I can pull it? I'll resolve
> >> > any remaining conflicts with the rest of -tip.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sure, I can do that in the morning.  The pull request merges cleanly
> >> with tip:core/rcu, though, so is the rebase needed?
> >
> > Yes, because your changes rely on the RCU change (semantically),
> > so if anyone bisects into your commits it might result in a
> > subtly broken kernel, right?
> 
> Almost.  The parent of my original pull request is the RCU 
> change that my entry changes semantically depend on, so 
> bisection should be fine.

Okay, that's good - so now I can pull your bits, because the RCU 
commit is final, no need to rebase. (Because you already based 
your bits on the RCU change that later on ended up in -tip.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/