linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the risc-v 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: <mhng-ad8a7c35-eb36-4a7d-9eff-996c707a48e3@palmerdabbelt-glaptop>
Date:   Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:55:30 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com
CC:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the risc-v tree

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:37:47 PST (-0800), andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:21:07PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   lib/Makefile
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   527701eda5f1 ("lib: Add a generic version of devmem_is_allowed()")
>>
>> from the risc-v tree and commits:
>>
>>   8250e121c672 ("lib/list_kunit: follow new file name convention for KUnit tests")
>>   17bf776cf09a ("lib/linear_ranges_kunit: follow new file name convention for KUnit tests")
>>   23fa4e39ee62 ("lib/bits_kunit: follow new file name convention for KUnit tests")
>>   1987f84faec6 ("lib/cmdline_kunit: add a new test suite for cmdline API")
>>
>> 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.
>
> Looks good enough (*) to me, thanks!
>
> *) I think we might group that new line with an existing one(s) of the same
> level (GENERIC_LIB) but it doesn't really matter.

I went back and forth on that one: it's got the same Kconfig name, but it's not
a libgcc function.  Maybe we shouldn't have had the "_LIB" in there?  I don't
remember if that was meant to stand for libgcc or lib/...

I'm happy to just re-spin my patch to avoid the conflict.  It's near/at the top
of my tree, so it's not a big deal, but I'm also just OK merging second and
pointing out the conflict.  Unless you care one way or the other I'll just do
whatever ends up being easier for me :)

>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>>
>> diff --cc lib/Makefile
>> index bcedd691ef63,dc623561ef9d..000000000000
>> --- a/lib/Makefile
>> +++ b/lib/Makefile
>> @@@ -350,8 -350,7 +350,9 @@@ obj-$(CONFIG_PLDMFW) += pldmfw
>>
>>   # KUnit tests
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_BITFIELD_KUNIT) += bitfield_kunit.o
>> - obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
>> - obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
>> - obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o
>> + obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += bits_kunit.o
>> + obj-$(CONFIG_CMDLINE_KUNIT_TEST) += cmdline_kunit.o
>> + obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += linear_ranges_kunit.o
>> + obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list_kunit.o
>>  +
>>  +obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_LIB_DEVMEM_IS_ALLOWED) += devmem_is_allowed.o