linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the powerpc 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: <20181207014057.GA214249@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 17:40:57 -0800
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.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>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
 powerpc tree

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:44:17PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/32/pgalloc.h
>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/nohash/32/pgalloc.h
>   arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-book3s64.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   a95d133c8643 ("powerpc/mm: Move pte_fragment_alloc() to a common location")
>   32ea4c149990 ("powerpc/mm: Extend pte_fragment functionality to PPC32")
> 
> from the powerpc tree and commit:
> 
>   913c2d755b39 ("mm: treewide: remove unused address argument from pte_alloc functions")
> 
> from the akpm-current tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below, plus the extra merge fix patch) 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.

The conflict resolution looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>

thanks,

 - Joel