linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the sched-ext tree with the tip 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240801124541.3deb64b8@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 12:45:41 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo
 Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra
 <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
 Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Tianchen Ding
 <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the sched-ext tree with the tip tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the sched-ext tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/sched/fair.c

between commit:

  faa42d29419d ("sched/fair: Make SCHED_IDLE entity be preempted in strict hierarchy")

from the tip tree and commit:

  2c8d046d5d51 ("sched: Add normal_policy()")

from the sched-ext tree.

I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped