linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with the arm 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: <20210629122813.3e0a57b6@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:28:13 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with the arm tree

Hi all,

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:20:25 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ab6cef1d1447 ("ARM: 9095/1: ARM64: Remove arm_pm_restart()")
> 
> from the arm tree and commit:
> 
>   b5df5b8307b1 ("arm64: idle: don't instrument idle code with KCOV")
> 
> from the arm64 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.
> 
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> index 5591725cebcc,161e8df31a0d..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> @@@ -72,63 -71,8 +71,6 @@@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__stack_chk_guard)
>   void (*pm_power_off)(void);
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_power_off);
>   
> - static void noinstr __cpu_do_idle(void)
> - {
> - 	dsb(sy);
> - 	wfi();
> - }
> - 
> - static void noinstr __cpu_do_idle_irqprio(void)
> - {
> - 	unsigned long pmr;
> - 	unsigned long daif_bits;
> - 
> - 	daif_bits = read_sysreg(daif);
> - 	write_sysreg(daif_bits | PSR_I_BIT | PSR_F_BIT, daif);
> - 
> - 	/*
> - 	 * Unmask PMR before going idle to make sure interrupts can
> - 	 * be raised.
> - 	 */
> - 	pmr = gic_read_pmr();
> - 	gic_write_pmr(GIC_PRIO_IRQON | GIC_PRIO_PSR_I_SET);
> - 
> - 	__cpu_do_idle();
> - 
> - 	gic_write_pmr(pmr);
> - 	write_sysreg(daif_bits, daif);
> - }
> - 
> - /*
> -  *	cpu_do_idle()
> -  *
> -  *	Idle the processor (wait for interrupt).
> -  *
> -  *	If the CPU supports priority masking we must do additional work to
> -  *	ensure that interrupts are not masked at the PMR (because the core will
> -  *	not wake up if we block the wake up signal in the interrupt controller).
> -  */
> - void noinstr cpu_do_idle(void)
> - {
> - 	if (system_uses_irq_prio_masking())
> - 		__cpu_do_idle_irqprio();
> - 	else
> - 		__cpu_do_idle();
> - }
> - 
> - /*
> -  * This is our default idle handler.
> -  */
> - void noinstr arch_cpu_idle(void)
> - {
> - 	/*
> - 	 * This should do all the clock switching and wait for interrupt
> - 	 * tricks
> - 	 */
> - 	cpu_do_idle();
> - 	raw_local_irq_enable();
> - }
>  -void (*arm_pm_restart)(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd);
> --
>   #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
>   void arch_cpu_idle_dead(void)
>   {

This is now a conflict between Linus' tree and the arm tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped