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: <86d0uhpcax.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Aug 2018 10:33:42 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:32:55 +0100,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 16/08/2018 02:15, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>  -#define ARM64_HAS_STAGE2_FWB			31
> >>  +#define ARM64_MISMATCHED_CACHE_TYPE		31
> >> ++#define ARM64_HAS_STAGE2_FWB			32
> >>   
> >> --#define ARM64_NCAPS				32
> >> ++#define ARM64_NCAPS				33
> >>   
> >>   #endif /* __ASM_CPUCAPS_H */
> > This is now a conflict between Linus' tree and the kvm-arm tree (and
> > presumably soon the kvm tree).
> 
> This should have been sorted out using topic branches.  I'll handle it
> myself by splitting the pull request in two, but please try to organize
> better the changes in non-KVM-specific arch/arm and arch/arm64 files.

We've dealt with that kind of trivial conflicts in the past without
requiring topic branches (cpucaps.h has always been a popular place),
and I always assumed that this was acceptable. I must have
misunderstood something here.

Next time, I'll direct the architecture-specific code via the arm64
tree directly.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.