[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKOOTsg4mAXRR3hHoeJ-RgvUhid9MQy=H0NL_KruHDbUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:12:55 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Bringmann <mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the powerpc tree
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>
> between commit:
>
> cee5405da402 ("powerpc/hotplug: Improve responsiveness of hotplug change")
>
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
>
> df7e828c1b69 ("timer: Remove init_timer_deferrable() in favor of timer_setup()")
>
> from the tip 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index eb604b3574fa,73016451f330..000000000000
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@@ -1506,9 -1466,7 +1505,7 @@@ static struct timer_list topology_timer
>
> static void reset_topology_timer(void)
> {
> - topology_timer.data = 0;
> - topology_timer.expires = jiffies + topology_timer_secs * HZ;
> - mod_timer(&topology_timer, topology_timer.expires);
> - mod_timer(&topology_timer, jiffies + 60 * HZ);
> ++ mod_timer(&topology_timer, jiffies + topology_timer_secs * HZ);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> @@@ -1561,13 -1520,14 +1558,14 @@@ int start_topology_update(void
> rc = of_reconfig_notifier_register(&dt_update_nb);
> #endif
> }
> - } else if (firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_VPHN) &&
> + }
> + if (firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_VPHN) &&
> lppaca_shared_proc(get_lppaca())) {
> if (!vphn_enabled) {
> - prrn_enabled = 0;
> vphn_enabled = 1;
> setup_cpu_associativity_change_counters();
> - init_timer_deferrable(&topology_timer);
> + timer_setup(&topology_timer, topology_timer_fn,
> + TIMER_DEFERRABLE);
> reset_topology_timer();
> }
> }
Thanks, this looks correct to me!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists