linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the iommufd tree with the iommu 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: <2dea40af-af71-4ea6-b3db-fd0db17c9846@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 20:25:19 +0800
From:   Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the iommufd tree with the iommu tree

On 2023/10/25 20:17, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 08:16:16PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
>> On 2023/10/25 20:12, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 03:34:55PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the iommufd tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>     drivers/iommu/intel/pasid.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>>     c61c255e114c ("iommu/vt-d: Remove unused function")
>>>>
>>>> from the iommu tree and commits:
>>>>
>>>>     f35f22cc760e ("iommu/vt-d: Access/Dirty bit support for SS domains")
>>>>     cbf8b441ea08 ("iommu/vt-d: Add helper to setup pasid nested translation")
>>>>
>>>> from the iommufd tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (the latter added a use of the function removed by
>>>> the former, so I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as
>>>> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
>>>> non trivial
>>> Intel folks, this is not nice 🙁 Why was the first commit done at all
>>> if the nesting series needs this?
>> It's my fault. My apologies for not realizing that the helper would
>> still be used by the nesting translation series. I will be more careful
>> in the future.
> Can you send a revert of c61c255e114c ASAP to Joerg please?

Sure!

Best regards,
baolu