linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the mm-nonmm-stable 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20260209120655.2045ea9f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 12:06:55 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
 Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Yury Norov <ynorov@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the
 mm-nonmm-stable tree

On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 08:58:10 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > 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.  
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> How about I drop "tracing: remove size parameter in __trace_puts()" and
> "tracing: move tracing declarations from kernel.h to a dedicated
> header"?

It should be a trivial merge conflict. I only moved the code from trace.c
into trace_printk.c. I made no other changes to it.

Basically, the commit in your tree would be the same, it would just be
applied to kernel/trace/trace_printk.c instead of kernel/trace/trace.c.

Both changes are similar in the fact they are cleanups in where code lives.

Or would you prefer if I take that change and rebase it on top of my tree?

-- Steve