linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the powerpc-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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200619140148.4ytme4wsvtw2oyrg@wittgenstein>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:01:48 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.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 pidfd tree with the
 powerpc-fixes tree

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:17:30PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   35e32a6cb5f6 ("powerpc/syscalls: Split SPU-ness out of ABI")
> >
> > from the powerpc-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> >   9b4feb630e8e ("arch: wire-up close_range()")
> >
> > from the pidfd 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.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I thought the week between rc1 and rc2 would be a safe time to do that
> conversion of the syscall table, but I guess I was wrong :)

:)

> 
> I'm planning to send those changes to Linus for rc2, so the conflict
> will then be vs mainline. But I guess it's pretty trivial so it doesn't
> really matter.

close_range() is targeted for the v5.9 merge window. I always do
test-merges with mainline at the time I'm creating a pr and I'll just
mention to Linus that there's conflict with ppc. :)

Thanks!
Christian