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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists