linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the libnvdimm-fixes 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: <CAPcyv4hq2N2H-HszhEm-rT2YziTLSeU1A5ea19-bDvSXMZLjCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:27:40 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@...hat.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the
 libnvdimm-fixes tree

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 8:02 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
>
>   drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   274b924088e935 ("libnvdimm/pfn: Fix namespace creation on misaligned addresses")
>
> from the libnvdimm-fixes tree and commit:
>
>   edbb52c24441ab ("libnvdimm/pfn_dev: Add page size and struct page size to pfn superblock")
>
> from the nvdimm 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.
>
> diff --cc drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> index cb98b8fe786e2,80c7992bc5389..0000000000000
> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> @@@ -724,9 -786,10 +788,11 @@@ static int nd_pfn_init(struct nd_pfn *n
>         memcpy(pfn_sb->uuid, nd_pfn->uuid, 16);
>         memcpy(pfn_sb->parent_uuid, nd_dev_to_uuid(&ndns->dev), 16);
>         pfn_sb->version_major = cpu_to_le16(1);
> -       pfn_sb->version_minor = cpu_to_le16(3);
> +       pfn_sb->version_minor = cpu_to_le16(4);
>  +      pfn_sb->end_trunc = cpu_to_le32(end_trunc);
>         pfn_sb->align = cpu_to_le32(nd_pfn->align);
> +       pfn_sb->page_struct_size = cpu_to_le16(MAX_STRUCT_PAGE_SIZE);
> +       pfn_sb->page_size = cpu_to_le32(PAGE_SIZE);
>         checksum = nd_sb_checksum((struct nd_gen_sb *) pfn_sb);
>         pfn_sb->checksum = cpu_to_le64(checksum);

Yes, looks correct. Apologies for not highlighting this conflict in advance.