linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 10:44:44 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:

  lib/bootconfig.c

between commit:

  77e02cf57b6c ("memblock: introduce saner 'memblock_free_ptr()' interface")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  6c7324bca2ec ("bootconfig: Fix to check the xbc_node is used before free it")

from the ftrace tree.

The new memblock_free_ptr() inroduced by Linus' tree copes with NULL
pointers, so I just used that.  Which means that the ftrace tree patch
will be redundant.

I fixed it up (see above) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped