linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the driver-core tree with the rcu 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:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 22:55:15 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the driver-core tree with the rcu
 tree

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 12:48:18PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the driver-core tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/base/core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   dc7c31b07ade ("drivers/base: Remove CONFIG_SRCU")
> 
> from the rcu tree and commit:
> 
>   3a2dbc510c43 ("driver core: fw_devlink: Don't purge child fwnode's consumer links")
> 
> from the driver-core tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (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.

I have added this to my list of conflicts, thank you!

							Thanx, Paul

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc drivers/base/core.c
> index bb36aca8d1b7,2712a1a1e959..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@@ -181,6 -202,52 +202,51 @@@ void fw_devlink_purge_absent_suppliers(
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fw_devlink_purge_absent_suppliers);
>   
> + /**
> +  * __fwnode_links_move_consumers - Move consumer from @from to @to fwnode_handle
> +  * @from: move consumers away from this fwnode
> +  * @to: move consumers to this fwnode
> +  *
> +  * Move all consumer links from @from fwnode to @to fwnode.
> +  */
> + static void __fwnode_links_move_consumers(struct fwnode_handle *from,
> + 					  struct fwnode_handle *to)
> + {
> + 	struct fwnode_link *link, *tmp;
> + 
> + 	list_for_each_entry_safe(link, tmp, &from->consumers, s_hook) {
> + 		__fwnode_link_add(link->consumer, to, link->flags);
> + 		__fwnode_link_del(link);
> + 	}
> + }
> + 
> + /**
> +  * __fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers - Pick up dangling consumers
> +  * @fwnode: fwnode from which to pick up dangling consumers
> +  * @new_sup: fwnode of new supplier
> +  *
> +  * If the @fwnode has a corresponding struct device and the device supports
> +  * probing (that is, added to a bus), then we want to let fw_devlink create
> +  * MANAGED device links to this device, so leave @fwnode and its descendant's
> +  * fwnode links alone.
> +  *
> +  * Otherwise, move its consumers to the new supplier @new_sup.
> +  */
> + static void __fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> + 						   struct fwnode_handle *new_sup)
> + {
> + 	struct fwnode_handle *child;
> + 
> + 	if (fwnode->dev && fwnode->dev->bus)
> + 		return;
> + 
> + 	fwnode->flags |= FWNODE_FLAG_NOT_DEVICE;
> + 	__fwnode_links_move_consumers(fwnode, new_sup);
> + 
> + 	fwnode_for_each_available_child_node(fwnode, child)
> + 		__fw_devlink_pickup_dangling_consumers(child, new_sup);
> + }
> + 
>  -#ifdef CONFIG_SRCU
>   static DEFINE_MUTEX(device_links_lock);
>   DEFINE_STATIC_SRCU(device_links_srcu);
>