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, 11 Feb 2021 15:41:03 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/arch: Move qrwlock.h include after qspinlock.h

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:59:35PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/02/21 17:19, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > >   arch/arm64/include/asm/spinlock.h  | 2 +-
> > >   arch/mips/include/asm/spinlock.h   | 2 +-
> > >   arch/xtensa/include/asm/spinlock.h | 2 +-
> > >   3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > which tree should this go through ? I can take it via mips-next,
> > if everybody agrees.
> 
> The breakage is in the KVM tree, and the existing patch has acked-by from
> the locking primitives folks.  So I'll queue it there in order to limit the
> range that breaks bisection.

if it's not too late you can add by 

Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ