linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bitmap tree with the arm64 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]

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:07:50 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, Catalin Marinas
	<catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, James Morse
	<james.morse@....com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
	<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, "Russell King (Oracle)"
	<rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bitmap tree with the arm64 tree

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:50:51 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bitmap tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/cpumask.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4e1a7df45480 ("cpumask: Add enabled cpumask for present CPUs that can be brought online")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
> 
>   5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro")
> 
> from the bitmap tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just did the obvious - see below) 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.
> 

Thanks Stephen,

We can make a similar change to the others in 
 5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro")
but to avoid merge complexity probably easier to just do it next cycle.

Jonathan