linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the printk 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221201105504.71c318f0@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2022 10:55:04 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the printk tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/rcu/update.c

between commit:

  64e838679e14 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory")

from the printk tree and commit:

  0cd7e350abc4 ("rcu: Make SRCU mandatory")

from the rcu tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter - it kept the WARN_ON_ONCE) 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.

Maybe you could share a (non rebasing) topic branch?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped