linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' 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]

Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:46:02 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@...wei.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/trace/ftrace.c

between commit:

  2a2d8c51defb ("ftrace: Fix issue that 'direct->addr' not restored in modify_ftrace_direct()")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  8788ca164eb4 ("ftrace: Remove the legacy _ftrace_direct API")

from the ftrace tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the lines changed by the latter, so I
did that) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped