linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rust tree with Linus' 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: <CANiq72nD2ezPVHH_mZhB4+FmD_Un90dGL+q5-Np+zUDj97UWCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:37:14 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alban Kurti <kurti@...icto.ai>, 
	Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rust tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:20 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rust tree got a conflict in:
>
>   rust/kernel/init.rs
>   rust/pin-init/src/macros.rs
>
> between commits:
>
>   df27cef15360 ("rust: init: fix `Zeroable` implementation for `Option<NonNull<T>>` and `Option<KBox<T>>`")
>   6933c1067fe6 ("rust: init: add missing newline to pr_info! calls")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
>   fbf8fb328d1b ("rust: move pin-init API into its own directory")
>
> and following ones from the rust tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version and applied the following
> patch) 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.
>
> More (or less) may be needed :-(

The part you did here looks OK, though we will need another line fixed
elsewhere, since the equivalent to that line is now elsewhere. Please
see the resolution in the last message.

Cheers,
Miguel