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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZoKlT59tNmCgYR7B@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:47:11 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.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, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:07:50AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:50:51 +1000
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 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.

We can add a patch at -rc1 once both trees got merged, we do this
occasionally.

-- 
Catalin