linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/20] unify generic instances of csum_partial_copy

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: <20200726071132.GA8862@infradead.org>
Date:   Sun, 26 Jul 2020 08:11:32 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/20] unify generic instances of
 csum_partial_copy_nocheck()

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:30:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Sorry, I meant csum_and_copy_from_nocheck, just as in this patch.
> > 
> > Merging your branch into the net-next tree thus will conflict in
> > the nios2 and asm-geneeric/checksum.h as well as lib/checksum.c.
> 
> Noted, but that asm-generic/checksum.h conflict will be "massage
> in net-next/outright removal in this branch"; the same goes for
> lib/checksum.c and nios2.  It's c6x that is unpleasant in that respect...

What about just rebasing your branch on the net-next tree?