linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEDV+gJa4pY-c3G1S6fq3HmkS3eukR3qFd6i=k-2Ws6Z0N=mxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 10:44:17 +0200
From:   Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Fri, Aug 25 2017 at  2:57:21 pm BST, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   1f9b8936f36f ("arm64: Decode information from ESR upon mem faults")
>>
>> from the arm64 tree and commit:
>>
>>   c5511c3c068c ("KVM: arm/arm64: Fix guest external abort matching")
>>
>> from the kvm-arm tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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 for that, result looking good.
>
> Christoffer: I think we could simply drop the hunk touching esr.h from
> James' patch. After all, even if nothing is using it, this bit still
> exists in the ESR register, and there is little gain in dropping its
> definition. This would solve the conflict nicely...
>

Yes, I have updated the branch accordingly and added my signed-off-by as well.

Thanks,
-Christoffer