linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the cgroup 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]

Date:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 12:16:32 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the cgroup tree

Hello,

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 08:44:48AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 09:38:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 04:18:12PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > After merging the cgroup tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> > 
> > Hmm,. TJ should I base sched/psi on top of drivers-core-next and your
> > cgroup tree?
> 
> Yeah, this is kinda nasty. Lemme just pull drivers-core-next into
> cgorup/for-6.1 so that folks don't have to worry about this and you can just
> pull that one.

I initially thought that driver-core-next was conflicting with
cgroup/for-6.1 but this is simpler. It's a straight forward conflict between
the PSI patchset in the tip tree and changes in cgroup/for-6.1 which are
cleaning up some cftype handling, and the patch that Stephen applied is
correct. So, we can do one of the following two:

1. Leave it as-is. Stephen's patch is correct and we can just let Linus know
   how to resolve it on the pull requests.

2. Pull cgroup/for-6.1 into the tip tree and preemptively resolve the
   conflict there.

I'm leaning towards #1 but #2 is fine too. Peter, what do you wanna do?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun