linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] pin control changes for v5.17

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: <Yd9AbO+Id7y1+IY+@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 22:56:12 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "D, Lakshmi Sowjanya" <lakshmi.sowjanya.d@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] pin control changes for v5.17

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:38:40PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:09:23AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:23 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > - There will be conflicts! Kconfig and Makefile conflicts due to
> > >   some RISC-V Starfive patches getting merged through the
> > >   SoC tree while we were tidying up the Kconfig and Makefile
> > >   (to avoid merge conflicts, heh) there is a resolution in linux-next
> > >   which was discussed and reviewed to be correct.
> > 
> > Whoever sorted the Makefile entries (yeah, it was Andy) isn't very good at it.
> 
> Indeed. Sorry for that, I will send an update for next cycle.
> 
> > The broken sorting put CONFIG_PINCTRL_STMFX before CONFIG_PINCTRL_ST,
> > and I have no idea how you can sort that way.
> > 
> > I left the broken sorting in place, because changing the sort order in
> > the merge would just be even *more* confusing.
> > 
> > There may be other cases of that kind of oddity, I just happened to
> > notice that one because the 'starfive' thing ended up having that same
> > 'st' beginning, and I went D'Oh when trying to make sure my merge kept
> > the ordering.


I setup a little experiment, since I'm using vim, there are two possibilities
to sort the selection, i.e. using internal sort and calling external !sort.

Using internal gives:

-obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_STMFX)    += pinctrl-stmfx.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_ST)       += pinctrl-st.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_STARFIVE) += pinctrl-starfive.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_STMFX)    += pinctrl-stmfx.o


Using external gives:

+obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_STARFIVE) += pinctrl-starfive.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_STMFX)    += pinctrl-stmfx.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_ST)       += pinctrl-st.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_PINCTRL_STARFIVE) += pinctrl-starfive.o


Now you may easily see what happened.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko