linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 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]

Message-ID: <86zg9ryyjk.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 06 Feb 2023 08:43:11 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 08:37:35 +0000,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 01:44:51 +0000,
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > [1  <text/plain; US-ASCII (quoted-printable)>]
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/arm64/kernel/hyp-stub.S
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   f122576f3533 ("arm64/sme: Enable host kernel to access ZT0")
> > 
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > 
> >   e2d4f5ae1771 ("KVM: arm64: Introduce finalise_el2_state macro")
> > 
> > from the kvm-arm tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (the code modified by the former was moved by the latter,
> > so I applied the following merge fix patch) 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.
> > 
> > I hope I got this right :-)
> 
> Thanks for giving it a go!
> 
> Catalin, we'll probably end-up taking the arm64/for-next/tpidr2 branch
> into the kvmarm tree in order to minimise the damage.

Scratch that, it is the sme2 branch.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.