linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' 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]

Message-ID: <20160330103031.GC4287@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 03:30:31 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with Linus' tree

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:32:14AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   kernel/rcu/tree.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   abedf8e2419f ("rcu: Use simple wait queues where possible in rcutree")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   08cace5914ea ("DIAGS: Crude exploratory hack")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the rcu tree version) 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.
> 
> I really don't think that that rcu tree patch should be in linux-next,
> right?

Right you are!  I will rework to get the diagnostics out of your way.
-Might- have helped find one of the bugs, but don't look now...

							Thanx, Paul