linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the xen-tip 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: <Y/SDU7d2LS9ka1+a@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:39:47 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Per Bilse <per.bilse@...rix.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the xen-tip tree


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 12:47:00PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > The following commits are also in the tip tree as different commits
> > (but the same patches):
> > 
> >   415dab3c1796 ("drivers/xen/hypervisor: Expose Xen SIF flags to userspace")
> >   336f560a8917 ("x86/xen: don't let xen_pv_play_dead() return")
> >   f697cb00afa9 ("x86/xen: mark xen_pv_play_dead() as __noreturn")
> > 
> > These are commits
> > 
> >   859761e770f8 ("drivers/xen/hypervisor: Expose Xen SIF flags to userspace")
> >   076cbf5d2163 ("x86/xen: don't let xen_pv_play_dead() return")
> >   1aff0d2658e5 ("x86/xen: mark xen_pv_play_dead() as __noreturn")
> > 
> > in the tip tree.
> 
> This was intentional (dependencies) and the plan is to only offer the
> tip branch for merge after the Xen tree goes in.

The rebase & *duplication* was not intentional at all - I assumed 
1aff0d2658e5 won't get rebased. :-/

We'll probably have to redo the objtool tree.

Thanks,

	Ingo