linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cgroup tree with the kvm 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <124cf94f-e7f5-d6f3-7e7a-2685e1e7517f@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:34:15 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cgroup tree with the kvm tree

On 22/04/21 07:53, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the cgroup tree got conflicts in:
> 
>    arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    9fa1521daafb ("KVM: SVM: Do not set sev->es_active until KVM_SEV_ES_INIT completes")
> 
> from the kvm tree and commit:
> 
>    7aef27f0b2a8 ("svm/sev: Register SEV and SEV-ES ASIDs to the misc controller")
> 
> from the cgroup 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.
> 

Tejun, please don't commit patches to other tree without an Acked-by 
from the maintainer (which I wouldn't have provided, as the right way to 
go would have been a topic branch).

Fortunately these patches are at the bottom of your tree.  If it's okay, 
I'll just pull from there "as if" you had provided a topic branch all 
the time.

Thanks,

Paolo