linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the pm 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: <20191030192308-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 30 Oct 2019 19:25:07 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
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>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the pm tree

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:13:57PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 5:19:28 AM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   fa583f71a99c ("ACPI: processor_idle: Skip dummy wait if kernel is in guest")
> > 
> > from the pm tree and commit:
> > 
> >   a04c0533b07c ("ACPI: disable extra P_LVLx access on KVM")
> 
> Well, if this touches code under drivers/acpi/, it should have been CCed to
> linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, but I don't recall seeing it.

It's an old RFC, posted a couple of years ago.
I guess I can drop it for now.


> > from the vhost tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I just used the pm tree version) 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.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>