linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp 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: <6e024a8c-5d54-44dd-8ab9-cb1d269c288a@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:29:20 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with Linus' tree

On 3/20/25 10:47 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    fe06b7c07f3f ("scsi: ufs: core: Set default runtime/system PM levels before ufshcd_hba_init()")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>    20b97acc4caf ("scsi: ufs: core: Fix a race condition related to device commands")
> 
> from the scsi-mkp 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.

Hi Stephen,

Thank you for having resolved this conflict. While the conflict 
resolution looks good to me and should result in working code, it may
be desirable to resolve it differently (init_completion() before the
ufs_get_desired_pm_lvl_for_dev_link_state() calls). This way the
spin_lock_init() and init_completion() calls stay close to each other.

Thanks,

Bart.