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: <mhng-4dd659ce-865c-48c8-bf51-397804035d60@palmer-ri-x1c9a>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
  leobras@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, yujie.liu@...el.com
Subject:     Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the risc-v tree

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:44:10 PDT (-0700), paulmck@...nel.org wrote:
> 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.

Sorry I forgot to send the shared tag.  We can pre-merge if you want, 
I'm fine either way just let me know.

>
> 							Thanx, Paul