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: <ZOb9OuFh/2pmkRv+@1wt.eu>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2023 08:48:26 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 Thomas,

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:41:18AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> 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.

My understanding is that Stephen's fix is still in his tree. We may indeed
need to add a note to Linus in the PR about this one and the other one.

Cheers,
Willy