[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRT3WDbidC2=0wGnKEB5syHh6D=zWS4TX2ZGYAKxfxASw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:30:12 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with Linus' tree
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 1:15 PM Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@...linux.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 11:31:31AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got conflicts in:
> >
> > arch/mips/kernel/ptrace.c
> > kernel/seccomp.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > b35f549df1d7 ("syscalls: Remove start and number from syscall_get_arguments() args")
> >
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> >
> > 16add411645c ("syscall_get_arch: add "struct task_struct *" argument")
> >
> > from the audit 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.
>
> Thanks, the merge fix is correct.
> I've also re-tested it using the new selftests/ptrace test
> from PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO patchset.
Thanks for the verification Dmitry.
Stephen, thanks for the heads-up, I'll pass this along to Linus come merge time.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists