linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the pm 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: <46e04d1c-dbc8-4a45-95d4-fecfdd943065@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 10:50:38 -0500
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
 <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Dhananjay Ugwekar <dhananjay.ugwekar@....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 pm tree

On 5/15/2025 10:49 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/12/2025 12:23 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 12 May 2025 14:55:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>     drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>>>>
>>>> between commit:
>>>>
>>>>     608a76b65288 ("cpufreq/amd-pstate: Add support for the "Requested CPU Min frequency" BIOS option")
>>>>
>>>> from the pm tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>>     d7484babd2c4 ("x86/msr: Rename 'rdmsrl_on_cpu()' to 'rdmsrq_on_cpu()'")
>>>>
>>>> from the tip tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (the former removed a line updated by the latter) 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.
>>>
>>> Actually it needed the fix up below.
>>>
>>
>> Ingo,
>>
>> Can you guys make an immutable branch for Rafael to merge into linux-pm for
>> this change?
>>
>> I can redo the amd-pstate merge based on that immutable branch.
>>
>> Rafael,
>>
>> If you want to just carry the fixup that's fine too.  Just LMK what you
>> need.
> 
> If it's only about rdmsrl_on_cpu(), how about the simple compatibility
> wrapper below instead, applied to the x86 tree?
> 
> Can merge it into -tip and tomorrow's -next would resolve this without
> any changes or merges done to the PM tree.

Sounds good to me.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
> 
> ===============>
>   arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> index a9ce56fc8785..4096b8af4ba7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/msr.h
> @@ -329,6 +329,7 @@ static inline int wrmsr_safe_regs_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, u32 regs[8])
>   /* Compatibility wrappers: */
>   #define rdmsrl(msr, val) rdmsrq(msr, val)
>   #define wrmsrl(msr, val) wrmsrq(msr, val)
> +#define rdmsrl_on_cpu(cpu, msr, q) rdmsrq_on_cpu(cpu, msr, q)
>   
>   #endif /* __ASSEMBLER__ */
>   #endif /* _ASM_X86_MSR_H */