linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm-perf 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: <20250312124501.GA6181@willie-the-truck>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:45:02 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	"Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm-perf
 tree

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 08:18:53PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/perf/apple_m1_cpu_pmu.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   c2e793da59fc ("perf: apple_m1: Don't disable counter in m1_pmu_enable_event()")
> 
> from the arm-perf tree and commit:
> 
>   75ecffc361bb ("drivers/perf: apple_m1: Refactor event select/filter configuration")
> 
> from the kvm-arm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc drivers/perf/apple_m1_cpu_pmu.c
> index 39349ecec3c1,6be703619a97..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/perf/apple_m1_cpu_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/apple_m1_cpu_pmu.c
> @@@ -396,7 -428,11 +428,7 @@@ static void m1_pmu_enable_event(struct 
>   	user = event->hw.config_base & M1_PMU_CFG_COUNT_USER;
>   	kernel = event->hw.config_base & M1_PMU_CFG_COUNT_KERNEL;
>   
> - 	m1_pmu_configure_counter(event->hw.idx, evt, user, kernel);
>  -	m1_pmu_disable_counter_interrupt(event->hw.idx);
>  -	m1_pmu_disable_counter(event->hw.idx);
>  -	isb();
>  -
> + 	m1_pmu_configure_counter(event->hw.idx, event->hw.config_base);
>   	m1_pmu_enable_counter(event->hw.idx);
>   	m1_pmu_enable_counter_interrupt(event->hw.idx);
>   	isb();

Looks fine to me but I'd also be happy to stick the first two patches
on a shared branch to avoid this. Oliver?

Will