linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <28aeee7b-2de5-4f39-8eb5-3e3486eeed1b@t-8ch.de>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2023 08:41:18 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable
 tree

Hi everybody,

On 2023-08-17 13:30:53+1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the nolibc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   08d959738a95 ("selftests: line buffer test program's stdout")
> 
> from the mm-stable tree and commits:
> 
>   65ff4d19f792 ("tools/nolibc/stdio: add setvbuf() to set buffering mode")
>   2e00a8fc4f47 ("tools/nolibc: setvbuf: avoid unused parameter warnings")
> 
> from the nolibc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version of this file) 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.

how do we want to handle this one?

A small note to Linus in the PRs to him on how to resolve it seem
reasonable to me.
But I'm fairly new to the process.

Thomas