2016-11-08 02:32:11

by Stephen Rothwell

Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with Linus' tree

Hi Kees,

FIXME: Add owner of second tree to To:
Add author(s)/SOB of conflicting commits.

Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:

mm/page_alloc.c
scripts/gcc-plugins/latent_entropy_plugin.c

between commits:

38addce8b600 ("gcc-plugins: Add latent_entropy plugin")
0766f788eb72 ("latent_entropy: Mark functions with __latent_entropy")
58bea4144d23 ("latent_entropy: Fix wrong gcc code generation with 64 bit variables")

from Linus' tree and commits:

2a5448668a3c ("gcc-plugins: Add latent_entropy plugin")
09dd109d8241 ("latent_entropy: Mark functions with __latent_entropy")

from the kspp tree.

I fixed it up (I used the version from Linus' tree) 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.

Kees, maybe you could clean up the kspp tree.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

2016-11-08 18:44:47

by Kees Cook

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kees,
>
> FIXME: Add owner of second tree to To:
> Add author(s)/SOB of conflicting commits.
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
>
> mm/page_alloc.c
> scripts/gcc-plugins/latent_entropy_plugin.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 38addce8b600 ("gcc-plugins: Add latent_entropy plugin")
> 0766f788eb72 ("latent_entropy: Mark functions with __latent_entropy")
> 58bea4144d23 ("latent_entropy: Fix wrong gcc code generation with 64 bit variables")
>
> from Linus' tree and commits:
>
> 2a5448668a3c ("gcc-plugins: Add latent_entropy plugin")
> 09dd109d8241 ("latent_entropy: Mark functions with __latent_entropy")
>
> from the kspp tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the version from Linus' tree) 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.
>
> Kees, maybe you could clean up the kspp tree.

Oh, I wonder how that got out of sync. I've updated the kspp tree.

Thanks!

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Nexus Security