linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the s390 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171101170413.7d06a1c1@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2017 17:04:13 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the s390 tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:

  arch/s390/lib/spinlock.c

between commit:

  eb3b7b848fb3 ("s390/rwlock: introduce rwlock wait queueing")
(at least)

from the s390 tree and commit:

  6aa7de059173 ("locking/atomics: COCCINELLE/treewide: Convert trivial ACCESS_ONCE() patterns to READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()")

from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (the ACCESS_ONCE instances replaced in the latter were
removed by the former ... there was one more ACCESS_ONCE added, but I
left it in place) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell