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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4328e2ca-7cec-4043-6c4f-e6a8a37c1b0f@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2023 08:23:53 -0600
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        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>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the mm-stable
 tree

On 8/24/23 05:45, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:48:26AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, this is the usual approach.  The note to Linus normally includes the
> URL for Stephen's email.  I usually also do the merge myself, publish
> a branch to it, and include the name of that branch in my pull request
> to Linus.  Linus usually prefers to resolve the merge conflicts himself,
> but my merge gives him something to compare against.
> 

Right. This is how resolve these types of merge conflicts. I will add
note to Linus about this one and the other one with vfs.

thanks,
-- Shuah