linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160912125341.0596ed9f@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:53:41 +1000
From:   Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kbuild tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:32:24 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Michal,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kbuild tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0f60a8efe400 ("mm: Implement stack frame object validation")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commits:
> 
>   a5967db9af51 ("kbuild: allow architectures to use thin archives instead of ld -r")
>   b67067f1176d ("kbuild: allow archs to select link dead code/data elimination")
> 
> from the kbuild tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see 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.
> 

Thanks Stephen, this should be a trivial conflict. Also you wrote one
of the patches :)

Question, what is the best way to merge dependent patches? Considering
they will need a good amount of architecture testing, I think they will
have to go via arch trees. But it also does not make sense to merge these
kbuild changes upstream first, without having tested them.

Thanks,
Nick