linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make dt_scan_depth1

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1604251221250.24872@sstabellini-ThinkPad-X260>
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:24:03 +0100 (BST)
From:	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
cc:	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
	catalin.marinas@....com, shannon.zhao@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peter.huangpeng@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make dt_scan_depth1_nodes more readable

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:04:53PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:25:11AM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > > > 
> > > > Improve the readability of dt_scan_depth1_nodes by removing the nested
> > > > conditionals.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > Note: this patch is based on xentip/for-linus-4.7
> > > 
> > > So how should I merge it? :/
> > 
> > I think that if you would like to merge it, it would be easier this time
> > for me to carry it in my tree. Otherwise you would have to base your
> > for-linus-4.7 on xentip/for-linus-4.7 and send the pull request after
> > the Xen pull request -- undesirable.
> 
> Ok, doesn't look like we'll run into conflicts. I just find it weird that
> you'd have a patch with no functional change as a dependency, hence my
> preference to queue it in the arm64 tree (where conflicts are more likely).
 
I see, that makes sense. In that case, would you be happy to take:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/xen/tip.git/commit/?h=for-linus-4.7&id=df115bb0a0b8ad2f6dc62f8d094c21e77b367e7c

in your tree? That would get rid of any cross dependecies between the
two tree.