linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm tree with the bitmap 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 10 Jul 2022 09:07:56 +0200
From:   Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm tree with the bitmap tree

Hi Stephen,

On Mon, 2022-07-04 at 17:26 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 16:58:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   include/linux/cpumask.h
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   50e413c31800 ("lib/cpumask: change return types to unsigned")
> >   e32bd0390739 ("lib/cpumask: move one-line wrappers around find_bit to the
> > header")
> > 
> > from the bitmap tree and commits:
> > 
> >   2b0b9f2665b2 ("cpumask: Fix invalid uniprocessor mask assumption")
> >   284d22458843 ("cpumask: update cpumask_next_wrap() signature")
> > 
> > from the mm tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I hope, 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.
> 

Thanks for solving the conflicts, looks fine to me. I've asked Andrew to reorder
my patches. The end result for the series should be the same though, and I don't
think my patches should require too many changes anymore.

If further merge conflicts arise with Yury's cpumask patches, I'm also fine with
them being run as one series if that would make things easier.

Best,
Sander