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  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]
Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:00:51 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the risc-v tree with the arm64 tree

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:24:30PM +0000, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 09:34:47AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the risc-v tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   98dc19902a0b ("arm64: topology: Use PPTT to determine if PE is a thread")
> > > 
> > > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   60c1b220d8bc ("cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.")
> > > 
> > > from the risc-v 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, Stephen.
> > 
> > Paul, Palmer -- If it's not too late, then it would probably be best to
> > stick this commit (60c1b220d8bc) and any dependencies on their own stable
> > branch so that we can both pull it into our respective trees and I can
> > resolve this conflict in the arm64 tree, which I'll send early during the
> > merge window.
> > 
> > Looking at your tree, I guess I could just pull in
> > common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology if you promise never to rebase it. Failing
> > that, you could fork a new branch from 60c1b220d8bc and I could just pull
> > that part instead.
> 
> How about if we treat common/for-v5.4-rc1/cpu-topology as a stable branch?  
> I wasn't planning to rebase it.  Then both of us can just merge it into 
> our for-next branches for the merge window?  (It looks like I will need to 
> rebuild the riscv for-next branch on top of v5.3-rc5, for unrelated 
> reasons.)
> 
> Sound reasonable?

Cheers, Paul. Sounds good to me.

Will

Powered by blists - more mailing lists