linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20201130115804.GC3902@gaia>
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 11:58:05 +0000
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the arm64 tree

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:48:35PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 18:28:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   e710c29e0177 ("arm64: mte: make the per-task SCTLR_EL1 field usable elsewhere")
> > 
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > 
> >   44a7127eb3a4 ("arm64: mte: add in-kernel MTE helpers")
> > 
> > from the akpm tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (the former just removed some of the context for what the
> > latter added) 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.
> 
> A couple of the following patches in the akpm tree also conflicted with
> the arm64 tree.

Thanks Stephen. While the conflicts are not too bad, the variable
renaming (e.g. gcr_incl -> gcr_excl) makes them look pretty messy. I'll
drop commit e710c29e0177 and the subsequent one from the arm64 tree and
either merge them via akpm or defer to 5.12.

-- 
Catalin