linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Kbuild updates for v5.4-rc1

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

Message-ID: <20190917184844.GA15149@linux-8ccs>
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:48:44 +0200
From:   Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthias Maennich <maennich@...gle.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kbuild updates for v5.4-rc1

+++ Will Deacon [17/09/19 19:16 +0100]:
>Hi Jessica,
>
>On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:01:36PM +0200, Jessica Yu wrote:
>> Yikes, I did not catch Stephen Rothwell's email about pausing the
>> linux-next releases from Sept 5 until Sept 30
>> (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20190904233443.3f73c46b@canb.auug.org.au/).
>>
>> The modules-next namespace patches have been in since last Tuesday,
>> and my original plan was for them to catch at least a week of
>> linux-next time before sending the pull request. :-/ But that did not
>> happen due to the above.
>>
>> So Linus, in light of the above realization, I'd say at this time - I
>> will still formally send a pull request with the merge conflicts
>> resolved with either solution #2 or #3, but merge at your own
>> discretion, it's fine to delay to the following release if you're
>> uncomfortable.
>
>FWIW, when I've run into unexpected merge conflicts with other trees in the
>past, I've found that it's usually sufficient just to include the resolution
>as an inline diff in the pull request, rather than try to munge the tree
>with merges or rebases.  Linus is pretty good at figuring it out, and with a
>resolution to compare with, the damage is limited. The downside of the merge
>is that it's fiddly to extract the changes and see what's actually being
>pulled.
>
>Also, it's not like the kbuild stuff has been in -next for ages, so this
>would've been a late and messy conflict regardless.

Hi Will!

Thanks a lot for the advice :-) The inline diff sounds like a good
idea. This is I believe only the second tree conflict I've encountered
so far so the tips are much appreciated.

Jessica