linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the risc-v 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAhSdy3gEW+SC1GCH0V4iVA9h1sxeVV-V=x4kG7w_9tcVTtamw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jan 2022 09:43:58 +0530
From:   Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm tree with the risc-v tree

Hi Palmer,

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 3:24 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 11:40:24 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   b579dfe71a6a ("RISC-V: Use SBI SRST extension when available")
> >
> > from the risc-v tree and commit:
> >
> >   c62a76859723 ("RISC-V: KVM: Add SBI v0.2 base extension")
> >
> > from the kvm 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/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > index 289621da4a2a,9c46dd3ff4a2..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/sbi.h
> > @@@ -27,7 -27,14 +27,15 @@@ enum sbi_ext_id
> >       SBI_EXT_IPI = 0x735049,
> >       SBI_EXT_RFENCE = 0x52464E43,
> >       SBI_EXT_HSM = 0x48534D,
> >  +    SBI_EXT_SRST = 0x53525354,
> > +
> > +     /* Experimentals extensions must lie within this range */
> > +     SBI_EXT_EXPERIMENTAL_START = 0x08000000,
> > +     SBI_EXT_EXPERIMENTAL_END = 0x08FFFFFF,
> > +
> > +     /* Vendor extensions must lie within this range */
> > +     SBI_EXT_VENDOR_START = 0x09000000,
> > +     SBI_EXT_VENDOR_END = 0x09FFFFFF,
> >   };
> >
> >   enum sbi_ext_base_fid {
>
> This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.

The commit c62a76859723 ("RISC-V: KVM: Add SBI v0.2 base extension")
is already merged in Linus' tree.

Since you are yet to send PR for 5.17, we have two options:
1) Rebase your for-next branch upon latest Linus' tree master branch
2) Send "RISC-V: Use SBI SRST extension when available" in the
next batch of changes for 5.17 after 5.17-rc1

Let me know if you want me to rebase and send v8 patch of
"RISC-V: Use SBI SRST extension when available"

In future, we should coordinate and use a shared tag for such
conflicting changes.

Regards,
Anup



>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell