linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Patches for the 5.19 Merge Window, Part 1

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: <mhng-c2485265-8142-4d5e-9b9f-2b63d1e01647@palmer-ri-x1c9>
Date:   Tue, 31 May 2022 16:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     Re: [GIT PULL] RISC-V Patches for the 5.19 Merge Window, Part 1

+Arnd, who probably saw this already...

On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:52:16 PDT (-0700), Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:13 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have a single manual resolution in the fe510 device tree, just the result of
>> some conflicting fixes.  It's not showing up in my merge, but a bunch of other
>> automatic resolutions are which is a bit worrisome on my end -- I don't usually
>> touch other trees, but we had a handful of big cross-tree things this time.
>
> Gaah. I'd have normally preferred for things like this to go through
> Arnd, but it looks like he at least ack'ed these things..

Ya, makes sense -- I don't really like touching other peoples' trees, 
it's a headache for everyone.  There is a bit of overhead involved in 
doing one of the multi-tree merges, though, so I'm never quite sure 
where to draw the line.  We did one for the spinlocks where it was 
pretty clear that was the way to go, as it was used by a handful of 
trees and didn't take that long to get the RISC-V bits cleaned up.

The compat stuff was a mess for a cycle or two, though, and RISC-V was 
the only user of the new bits.  I always feel bad trying to dump messes 
on other folks, so I figured it was easier to just fix it myself and by 
the time that happened it looked like everyone else had stopped paying 
attention.  I poked it a few times both before and after putting into my 
for-next, but with the Acks I just took it.

After seeing those conflicts I kind of wanted to push for it to get 
merged a different way.  Had it not been both before some other 
stuff and a persistent headache I probably would have just sent the PR 
before that merge and asked folks again, but I guess I just wanted to 
finally have this one done.

Though now that I say that, merging something because it was a headache 
is probably the wrong message to send folks... ;)

> I've obviously pulled it, as you can see from the pr-tracker-bot reply
> that already went out.

Thanks, I'll try not to make a mess next time.