linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the l2-mtd tree with the kbuild-current 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:   Tue, 22 Aug 2017 07:37:01 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the l2-mtd tree with the
 kbuild-current tree

Le Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:56:14 +1000,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> a écrit :

> Hi Brian,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the l2-mtd tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   cb87481ee89d ("kbuild: linker script do not match C names unless LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION is configured")

Masahiro, according to this message [1], you queued the above patch to
your fixes branch. Do you plan to send a fixes PR to Linus before
-rc7? If that's the case I'll merge -rc7 in l2-mtd/master, otherwise
I'll need an immutable branch.

Thanks,

Boris

[1]https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg599088.html

> 
> from the kbuild-current tree and commit:
> 
>   129f6c4820dd ("mtd: only use __xipram annotation when XIP_KERNEL is set")
> 
> from the l2-mtd 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.
>