linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the s390 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <iphp537xgykfuzwwf2faatglwjh4eejanaucle4f4ew3kmfp2i@23qaverl34ak>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:16:52 +0100
From: Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, 
	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 tip tree with the s390 tree

On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 08:50:44PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   kernel/sysctl.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   20de8f8d3178 ("s390: Move s390 sysctls into their own file under arch/s390")
> > 
> > from the s390 tree and commit:
> > 
> >   c305a4e98378 ("x86: Move sysctls into arch/x86")
> > 
> > from the tip 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.
> 
> Thank you Stephen!
Indeed. Thanks!!!

Just a quick comment on this conflict:
1. The conflict is caused because "acpi_video_flags" is after
   "spin_retry" in the kern_table array. The solution (Which I see in
   next-20250328) is to remove them both from kernel/sysctl.c

2. This is the exact reason why we are moving these out of
   kernel/sysctl.c. It is too easy to touch the same region even if they
   are from different architectures.

Best

-- 

Joel Granados