linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: mellanox: drop mlx5_cpumask_default

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]

Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 15:20:30 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        Maher Sanalla <msanalla@...dia.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Pawel Chmielewski <pawel.chmielewski@...el.com>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Yury Norov <ynorov@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: mellanox: drop mlx5_cpumask_default_spread()

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 06:46:17 -0700 Yury Norov wrote:
> Can you elaborate on the conflicts you see? For me it applies cleanly
> on current master, and with some 3-way merging on latest -next...

We're half way thru the release cycle the conflicts can still come in.

There's no dependency for the first patch. The most normal way to
handle this would be to send patch 1 to the networking tree and send
the rest in the subsequent merge window.