linux-kernel - 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230210124818.2caaa77f@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2023 12:48:18 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc:     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: linux-next: manual merge of the driver-core tree with the rcu tree

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.

-- 
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);
  

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped