[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230504131824.182744-1-broonie@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 22:18:24 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...isterre.sirena.org.uk>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the origin tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
between commit:
5c289a59b1d08 ("cachestat: implement cachestat syscall")
from the origin tree and commit:
a9d48cbbcc40b ("x86/shstk: Introduce map_shadow_stack syscall")
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/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
index 227538b0ce801,f65c671ce3b14..0000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
@@@ -372,7 -372,7 +372,8 @@@
448 common process_mrelease sys_process_mrelease
449 common futex_waitv sys_futex_waitv
450 common set_mempolicy_home_node sys_set_mempolicy_home_node
-451 64 map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
+451 common cachestat sys_cachestat
++452 64 map_shadow_stack sys_map_shadow_stack
#
# Due to a historical design error, certain syscalls are numbered differently
Powered by blists - more mailing lists