linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the risc-v tree

linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the risc-v tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1219 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  arch/riscv/Kconfig

between commit:

  95ce6c73da3b ("riscv: Enable context tracking")
  929f6a183839 ("riscv: Add kmemleak support")

from the risc-v tree and commit:

  140c8180eb7c ("arch: remove HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS")

from the pidfd 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/riscv/Kconfig
index 76a0cfad3367,f6a3a2bea3d8..000000000000
--- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
@@@ -57,9 -52,6 +57,8 @@@ config RISC
  	select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
  	select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
  	select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS
 +	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
- 	select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
 +	select HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
  	select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS if MMU
  	select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if MMU
  	select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG if FUTEX

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the risc-v tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1444 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/riscv/Kconfig
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   95ce6c73da3b ("riscv: Enable context tracking")
>   929f6a183839 ("riscv: Add kmemleak support")
> 
> from the risc-v tree and commit:
> 
>   140c8180eb7c ("arch: remove HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS")
> 
> from the pidfd 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.
> 
> diff --cc arch/riscv/Kconfig
> index 76a0cfad3367,f6a3a2bea3d8..000000000000
> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> @@@ -57,9 -52,6 +57,8 @@@ config RISC
>   	select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
>   	select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
>   	select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS
>  +	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
> - 	select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
>  +	select HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
>   	select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS if MMU
>   	select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if MMU
>   	select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG if FUTEX

This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the risc-v tree

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Tue, 04 Aug 2020 17:39:43 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
>> 
>>   arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>   95ce6c73da3b ("riscv: Enable context tracking")
>>   929f6a183839 ("riscv: Add kmemleak support")
>> 
>> from the risc-v tree and commit:
>> 
>>   140c8180eb7c ("arch: remove HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS")
>> 
>> from the pidfd 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.
>> 
>> diff --cc arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> index 76a0cfad3367,f6a3a2bea3d8..000000000000
>> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> @@@ -57,9 -52,6 +57,8 @@@ config RISC
>>   	select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
>>   	select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
>>   	select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS
>>  +	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
>> - 	select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
>>  +	select HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
>>   	select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS if MMU
>>   	select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if MMU
>>   	select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG if FUTEX
>
> This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.

Thanks.  I'd just pulled in some stuff and was intending on sending a PR to
Linus tomorrow (we've got some autobuilders that run overnight that I like to
give a crack at the actual commit before I send anything).  For this one I
think the best bet is to just mention it to Linus as a conflict to be fixed --
the only other thing I can think of would be to rebase my tree, which seems
worse at this point.

LMK if anyone has a better idea, otherwise I'll send it out.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the risc-v tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1223 bytes --]

Hi Palmer,

On Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>
> >> diff --cc arch/riscv/Kconfig
> >> index 76a0cfad3367,f6a3a2bea3d8..000000000000
> >> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> >> @@@ -57,9 -52,6 +57,8 @@@ config RISC
> >>   	select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
> >>   	select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
> >>   	select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS
> >>  +	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
> >> - 	select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
> >>  +	select HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
> >>   	select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS if MMU
> >>   	select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if MMU
> >>   	select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG if FUTEX  
> >
> > This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.  
> 
> Thanks.  I'd just pulled in some stuff and was intending on sending a PR to
> Linus tomorrow (we've got some autobuilders that run overnight that I like to
> give a crack at the actual commit before I send anything).  For this one I
> think the best bet is to just mention it to Linus as a conflict to be fixed --
> the only other thing I can think of would be to rebase my tree, which seems
> worse at this point.

Its pretty trivial, just mention it.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]