linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] x86/core for v6.5-rc1

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: <87zg4l50ln.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2023 00:18:28 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] x86/core for v6.5-rc1

Linus!

On Mon, Jun 26 2023 at 15:00, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 05:14, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> This conflicts with smp/core and x86/boot. The recommended ordering of
>> merging these three branches is smp/core, x86/boot, x86/core.
>>
>> The x86/boot and final x86/core merge have both subtle conflicts. I've
>> pushed out the following tags:
>>
>>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git merge_smp_core_x86_boot_for_6_5
>>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git merge_smp_core_x86_boot_x86_core_for_6_5
>>
>> for your conveniance to check against.
>
> Bah. I read this after I had already done the merges in a different
> order, and my result is a bit different from your merges.

I see you started with x86/boot, which has a similar note. I clearly
missed to add one to smp/core :)

> All my differences seem to be benign, though. The main one seems to be
> that I kept a preempt_disable/preempt_enable pair in
> wakeup_secondary_cpu_via_init(), the others seem to be just comments
> and declaration ordering changes.

That's fine. I do the comment fixup and the preempt_*able() removal in a
follow up.

> Still, you might want to double-check the end result.

Other than the cosmetic issues you noticed yourself, it's all good.

Thanks,

        tglx