linux-kernel - Re: riscv: irq-riscv-imsic-early.c:52:9: error: too many arguments to function 'riscv_ipi_set_virq

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: <87y17zc88y.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 21:36:29 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc: linux@...ck-us.net, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
 naresh.kamboju@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, apatel@...tanamicro.com,
 anders.roxell@...aro.org, dan.carpenter@...aro.org, Arnd Bergmann
 <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: riscv: irq-riscv-imsic-early.c:52:9: error: too many arguments
 to function 'riscv_ipi_set_virq_range'

On Fri, May 24 2024 at 10:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2024 10:18:42 PDT (-0700), tglx@...utronix.de wrote:
>> On Fri, May 24 2024 at 08:10, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 10:05:59AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>> as a conflict resolution, which IIUC should happen when Linus merges my next
>>>> PR.  So I'll try and remember to call that out.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately it looks like the conflict resolution did not happen,
>>> and mainline builds are now affected.
>>
>> Fix is queued and goes to Linus tomorrow.
>
> Sorry I misesd this.  The PR I sent Linus this morning contains my fix 
> from earlier this week: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/171647463438.13050.6219786365640043025.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org/T/#t 

Happens. I don't rebase my try. I just mention it to Linus when I
send the pull request. It's the same change so the result is a NOOP and
not another conflict :)

Thanks,

        tglx