linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the s390 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230418134010.69844-1-broonie@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:40:10 +0100
From:   broonie@...nel.org
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the s390 tree

Hi all,

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

  arch/s390/kernel/setup.c

between commit:

  944c78376a39b ("s390: use init_thread_union aka initial stack for the first process")

from the s390 tree and commit:

  9ea7e6b62c2bd ("init: Mark [arch_call_]rest_init() __noreturn")

from the tip 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.

diff --cc arch/s390/kernel/setup.c
index 0903fe3566341,4259b6c505163..0000000000000
--- a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c