linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current 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]

Date:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:14:04 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the pm
 tree

On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 07:53:53PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/acpi/acpi_numa.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4849bc777049 ("ACPI / NUMA: Add stub function for pxm_to_node()")
> 
> from the pm tree and commit:
> 
>   623347c1b949 ("x86/numa: cleanup configuration dependent command-line options")
> 
> from the akpm-current 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc include/acpi/acpi_numa.h
> index 09eb3bc20ff5,0e9302285f14..000000000000
> --- a/include/acpi/acpi_numa.h
> +++ b/include/acpi/acpi_numa.h
> @@@ -23,9 -23,16 +23,20 @@@ extern void bad_srat(void)
>   extern int srat_disabled(void);
>   
>   #else				/* CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA */
>  +static inline int pxm_to_node(int pxm)
>  +{
>  +	return 0;
>  +}
> + static inline void disable_srat(void)
> + {
> + }
>   #endif				/* CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA */
> + 
> + #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HMAT
> + extern void disable_hmat(void);
> + #else				/* CONFIG_ACPI_HMAT */
> + static inline void disable_hmat(void)
> + {
> + }
> + #endif				/* CONFIG_ACPI_HMAT */
>   #endif				/* __ACP_NUMA_H */

Thanks Stephen, this was expected. The resolution looks good to me and
is what I had locally.

Cheers,
Nathan