linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the tip 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:21:04 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the tip tree

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   d3d6923cd1ae ("x86/mce: Carve out the crashing_cpu check")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>   f6785eac562b ("x86/memory_failure: Introduce {set,clear}_mce_nospec()")
> 
> from the nvdimm tree.

Dan, we have rules how to deal with that stuff and there is no excuse for
you to collect random patches and apply them as you see fit. Stop this
please.

MCE/RAS patches have a well established and working route and if something
in your tree really depends on this, which I'm not seeing at all, then
there are well documented and established procedures to do that.

Thanks,

	tglx