linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvms390 tree with the s390 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, 23 Jan 2023 14:02:27 -0500
From:   Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        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 kvms390 tree with the s390 tree


On 1/22/23 8:12 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvms390 tree got a conflict in:
>
>    drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>
> between commit:
>
>    0daf9878a799 ("s390/vfio_ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>
> from the s390 tree and commit:
>
>    bedac519eefa ("s390/vfio-ap: check TAPQ response code when waiting for queue reset")
>
> from the kvms390 tree.
>
> They seem to do the same thing, so I used the version of this file from
> the s390 tree as it's commit is much newer and has other changes to this
> file i.e. I effectively dropped the kvms390 tree commit.


That's odd, the patch series posted to the kernel mailing lists did not 
have both of those patches. I think the problem may have occurred 
because there was an earlier version of the patch in question that was 
used to debug a problem in our CI. That patch should have been reverted 
prior to installing the latest version.


>
> I fixed it up (see above) 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.
>