linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL]: dmaengine updates for v5.19-rc1

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 10:21:28 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        dma <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL]: dmaengine updates for v5.19-rc1

On 29-05-22, 11:49, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:50 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Please pull to receive the dmaengine updates for this cycle. Nothing
> > special, this includes a couple of new device support and new driver
> > support and bunch of driver updates.
> 
> Vinod, _please_ report it when it turns out that there are semantic
> merge issues in linux-next.
> 
> The whole point of linux-next is to report and find problems, but that
> also means that if the issues found in linux-next are then completely
> ignored, the _point_ of being in linux-next goes away.
> 
> In particular, there was a semantic drivers/dma/idxd/device.c that git
> was perfectly happy to merge one way, but that needed manual
> intervention to get the locking right. See
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/all/a6df0b8a-dc42-51e4-4b7b-62d1d11c7800@intel.com/
> 
> and this is exactly the kind of thing that should be mentioned in the
> pull request, because no, I do not track every single merge issue in
> linux-next.
> 
> I only catch them when something makes me go "Hmm", and in this case
> it was a different conflict near-by that just happened to make me look
> closer (the same one that Stephen had noted).
> 
> Stephen makes this clear in his notifications:
> 
>  "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"
> 
> and yes, the original merge was indeed trivial and wouldn't have
> needed any further mention had it _stayed_ that way.
> 
> But it didn't actually stay that way, as pointed out by Dave Jiang in
> that thread.
> 
> The fact that I caught it this time doesn't mean that I will catch
> things like this in general. I'm pretty good at merging, but there
> really is a reason linux-next exists.

Hi Linus,

Sorry about missing it, am not sure why I didn't add it here, usually I
do add. Apologies again for missing this and will ensure it won't be
missed again.

Yes merge had conflicts and linux-next had an updated and correct
resolution which should have been mentioned by me as was done in the
past. Will take steps to ensure I dont miss them.

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)