linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the dma-mapping 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]

Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 15:45:17 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the dma-mapping tree

On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:51:28AM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> I'm verry sorry for that. I had 2 trees, one with const get_dma_addr()
> and dma-for-next without const, and didn't check it compiles after
> rebasing >_<
> 
> net-next already has this const. We could leave it as in your attached
> patch, but then there'll be a trivial conflict when merging with
> net-next. Or I can send an incremental quick fix for dma-for-next, but
> then 2 commits (one in your tree and one in net-next) will have these
> changes duplicated.
> What do you think?

Let's just add the const annoations after the trees are merged into
Linus' tree. Nothing really wrong with not having them right now.