linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFTeom8u6nb8z1+BF+1B3rChUqfvgp29h3yqFWVAu5nJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:21:00 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the tip tree

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 11:45 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:08:42 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 01:29:41PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The following commits are also in the mm tree as different commits
> > > (but the same patches):
> > >
> > >   96450ead1652 ("seqlock: add raw_seqcount_try_begin")
> > >   eb449bd96954 ("mm: convert mm_lock_seq to a proper seqcount")
> > >
> > > These are commits
> > >
> > >   46dbe8ab1205 ("seqlock: add raw_seqcount_try_begin")
> > >   5f0d64389e1f ("mm: convert mm_lock_seq to a proper seqcount")
> > >
> > > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree.  The latter ones are already
> > > causing conflicts.
> >
> > Why is this in -mm ?
>
> Because
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241206225204.4008261-1-surenb@google.com/T/#u
> needs it.
>
> > I agreed with Suren I'd take them through
> > tip/perf/core to go along with Andrii's uprobe patch that relies on
> > them.

Both trees now have changes depending on those patches. If we can't
have them in both trees then I can rework my last patchset in the mm
tree to use old seqcount code and not require those patches, but we
will have to deal with the merge conflicts later.