linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the arm64 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:48:27 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        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 ftrace tree with the arm64 tree

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 12:25:14 +0000
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:

> Thanks Stephen!
> 
> Steven (Rostedt), what's your preference for handling this?
> 
> We can drop revert the arm64 change to vmlinux.lds.h for now (and I can
> send it as a subsequent cleanup), or you could merge my
> arm64/ftrace-with-regs branch and fix this up in the ftrace tree.

Or we can just make a note of this, and mention it in our pull requests
to Linus.

We could make a single branch where we merged the two branches, fix it
up (as I believe Stephen did it correctly) and tell Linus "here's the
fix up".

This is a common occurrence and Linus has no problems with this. As
long as he's given a heads up.

-- Steve