linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 23 May 2020 08:06:14 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        elver@...gle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:54:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 05:12:23PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> Marco, Thomas, is there any better setup I can provide Stephen?  Or
> >> is the next-20200519 -rcu tree the best we have right now?
> >
> > I've queued the fixes yesterday into tip:locking/kcsan and tglx said
> > something about you having to rebase anyway. I guess you can find him on
> > IRC at some point later. :)
> 
> locking/kcsan is not the problem (it just has more fixes on top)
> 
> core/rcu is the one which diverged and caused the merge conflict with
> PPC to happen twice. So Paul needs to remove the stale core/rcu bits and
> rebase on the current version (which is not going to change again).

So there will be another noinstr-rcu-* tag, and I will rebase on top
of that, correct?  If so, fair enough!

							Thanx, Paul