linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 09:27:35 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the edac tree

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 02:37:26PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Borislav,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/edac/edac_mc.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ef91afa61088 ("edac: move documentation from edac_mc.c to edac_core.h")
> 
> from the edac tree and commit:
> 
>   c73e8833bec5 ("EDAC, mc: Fix locking around mc_devices list")
> 
> from the edac-amd tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below - there may be more fixes needed in
> edac_core.h) 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.

Just one issue which has nothing to do with linux-next. There's still
that in ef91afa61088:

> +/**
> + * edac_mc_find: Search for a mem_ctl_info structure whose index is @idx.
> + *
> + * @idx: index to be seek
> + *
> + * If found, return a pointer to the structure.
> + * Else return NULL.
> + *
> + * Caller must hold mem_ctls_mutex.
> + */

That last sentence in the comment is not true anymore - edac_mc_find()
is grabbing the mutex itself as it should be. Mauro, please fix that in
your tree.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.