linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the risc-v 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: <b147ca95-c0e2-4729-b670-a1ee605369d2@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:44:10 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
	Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the risc-v tree

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:32:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/riscv/include/asm/cmpxchg.h
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   07a0a41cb77d ("riscv/cmpxchg: Deduplicate cmpxchg() asm and macros")
>   54280ca64626 ("riscv/cmpxchg: Implement cmpxchg for variables of size 1 and 2")
> 
> from the risc-v tree and commit:
> 
>   b5e49f1af563 ("riscv: Emulate one-byte cmpxchg")
> 
> from the rcu tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the former as the latter seems to no longer be
> needed - I also undid the change to arch/riscv/Kconfig from the latter)
> 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.

Agreed, it looks to me like I should drop my RISC-V change in favor of
the native support.  Please let me know if I am mistaken.

If I do not hear otherwise, I will pull my commit out of -next in favor
of those two on my next rebase.

							Thanx, Paul