From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the audit tree with Linus' tree Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 16:30:12 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20190408113131.222f480a@canb.auug.org.au> <20190408171534.GA11717@altlinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190408171534.GA11717@altlinux.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Dmitry V. Levin" Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 1:15 PM Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 11:31:31AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the audit tree got conflicts in: > > > > arch/mips/kernel/ptrace.c > > kernel/seccomp.c > > > > between commit: > > > > b35f549df1d7 ("syscalls: Remove start and number from syscall_get_arguments() args") > > > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > > > 16add411645c ("syscall_get_arch: add "struct task_struct *" argument") > > > > from the audit 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. > > Thanks, the merge fix is correct. > I've also re-tested it using the new selftests/ptrace test > from PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO patchset. Thanks for the verification Dmitry. Stephen, thanks for the heads-up, I'll pass this along to Linus come merge time. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com