linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the modules 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: <6ydyoh5yfqk3qwha2lysmqohvh3ffhmv52yph4aqzq46eaa7t2@clpm2eqydmpi>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 19:32:05 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>, 
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, 
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, 
	Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczynski@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pwm tree with the modules tree

Hello Daniel,

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 04:54:01PM +0100, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> On 10/11/2025 16.42, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 02:59:15PM +0100, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> >> On 07/11/2025 17.44, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>> Given that the conflict resolution is non-trivial and we already know
> >>> what to do, I suggest you merge my commit into the modules tree.
> >>
> >> Do you mean creating a separate branch that includes the conflict resolution, to
> >> be used as an example when sending the PR?
> > 
> > If I were the module maintainer I'd pull
> > 
> > 	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ukleinek/linux.git rust-module-namespace
> > 
> > into my tree and include that into the v6.19-rc1 pull request. That way
> > the merge conflict doesn't happen at all for Linus.
> 
> 
> That's not my understanding on how to deal with conflicts:
> 
> https://docs.kernel.org/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.html#merging-from-sibling-or-upstream-trees

Note the "don't" described in the docs isn't what I suggested to do
here. The rust-module-namespace is a change that belongs into the
modules tree and that I build upon in my tree.

So this is (somewhat) the case "Another reason for doing merges of
upstream or another subsystem tree is to resolve dependencies". Only the
merge direction is wrong because the usual expectation is that a change
to rust/macros/module.rs originates in the modules (or some rust) tree.
But for the justification and also the resulting commit topology that
doesn't matter.

Also "[back merges] will significantly increase your chances of
encountering bugs from elsewhere in the community and make it hard to
ensure that the work you are managing is stable and ready for upstream."
doesn't apply because by merging the suggested tag you only get a single
commit and not my complete pwm tree.

If you want to convince yourself this is in fact quite usual I suggest
looking at https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=s%3APULL+AND+s%3AImmutable.

Best regards
Uwe

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)