linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the landlock tree with the 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: <b57481af-5824-72f7-d20f-cfd78fcde519@digikod.net>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 11:10:51 +0200
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the landlock tree with the tip tree

Hi Thomas,

There is a (trivial) merge conflict because one of your commits adds 
ARCH_HAS_CPU_FINALIZE_INIT and one of mine removes ARCH_EPHEMERAL_INODES 
in arch/um/Kconfig.

I don't plan to add more commits to my tree until the merge window and 
I'd like to send a PR to Linus as soon as it is open. Would that be OK 
with you to let Linus deal with this trivial conflict or do you prefer 
one of us to rebase on the other's tree?

Regards,
  Mickaël


On 20/06/2023 05:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the landlock tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    arch/um/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    9349b5cd0908 ("um/cpu: Switch to arch_cpu_finalize_init()")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>    74ce793bcbde ("hostfs: Fix ephemeral inodes")
> 
> from the landlock 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.
>