linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the sh 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:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:16:40 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the sh tree

Hi Rich,

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:55:03 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 03:13:42PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/sh/include/asm/spinlock.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   2da83dfce7df ("sh: add J2 atomics using the cas.l instruction")
> > 
> > from the sh tree and commit:
> > 
> >   726328d92a42 ("locking/spinlock, arch: Update and fix spin_unlock_wait() implementations")
> > 
> > from the tip tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I used this file from the sh tree and then added the merge
> > fix patch below) 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.  
> 
> Assuming the J2 SMP changes go upstream this merge window, should I
> simply cite this conflict and your patch when sending the pull request
> to Linux, or include the merge fix patch myself?

Just mention it to Linus.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell