[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8fcc8318-2d90-485d-acdd-196bda95cd6a@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 10:02:23 +0100
From: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Daniel Gomez
<da.gomez@...sung.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 modules tree
On 1/27/25 03:59, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The following commits are also in Linus Torvalds' tree as different
> commits (but the same patches):
>
> 0217859ce172 ("module: sign with sha512 instead of sha1 by default")
> 0dea980a17a3 ("module: sysfs: Drop member 'module_sect_attrs::nsections'")
> 0e436d14d0b9 ("module: Put known GPL offenders in an array")
> 25aa76116052 ("module: Constify 'struct module_attribute'")
> 570f7776db9c ("module: Split module_enable_rodata_ro()")
> 75b519abc918 ("module: sysfs: Simplify section attribute allocation")
> 8c82fb5240f7 ("module: Extend the preempt disabled section in dereference_symbol_descriptor().")
> 993026197341 ("params: Prepare for 'const struct module_attribute *'")
> 9b894ee43337 ("module: Don't fail module loading when setting ro_after_init section RO failed")
> c027a83a0375 ("module: sysfs: Drop member 'module_sect_attr::address'")
> cb80af8451df ("module: Handle 'struct module_version_attribute' as const")
> cd8026d4bda8 ("module: sysfs: Drop 'struct module_sect_attr'")
> e6ea40687ff0 ("module: sysfs: Use const 'struct bin_attribute'")
> fc15d675bc49 ("module: sysfs: Add notes attributes through attribute_group")
>
> Presumably rebased before asking Linus to merge them :-(
Right, I rebased modules-next locally, pushed a tag for a pull request
which has been merged, but I forgot to push the actual branch. Sorry
about that, it should be fixed now.
I could have arguably saved myself time and trouble by not rebasing
modules-next in this case, which might have been also better from
a testing perspective.
--
Thanks,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists