Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 May 2012 20:37:07 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: Tree for May 23 (uml) |
| |
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 07:19:17PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Grr... That's a conflict between uml gaining TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME (needed > prereq to task_work_add() series) and patch in said series doing away > with explicit calls of key_replace_session_keyring(). Fixup is to remove > those two lines in arch/um/process.c, same as done on other architectures > by "keys: kill the dummy key_replace_session_keyring()" (commit c1cb001). > > Not an issue for mainline merge, since task_work_add patchset goes later, > but I think I'll have to cherry-pick that series into signal.git. And > probably reorder it a bit, moving the calls into tracehook_notify_resume() > first, with "kill the dummy..." commit removing just that single call.
Hmm... Two solutions, take your pick:
1) I think the minimal solution is this: I add the "move key_replace_session_keyring() into tracehook_notify_resume()" into signal.git for-next, which yields one conflict with next/akpm. With conflict resolution being "take tracehook_notify_resume() from next/akpm". I've put that into for-next-variant1
2) Cherry-picked these guys into signal.git, along with the rest of signal prereqs for them. Merge with next/akpm-base yields a couple of trivial conflicts in kernel/fork.c (with sched, mm: Rework sched_{fork,exec} node assignment removing INIT_LIST_HEAD right next to the place where we add one; conflict resolution being just keep the one Oleg adds and remove the one Peter removes) and in kernel/irq/manage.c (with genirq: Be more informative on irq type mismatch changing a couple of printks in there; conflict resolution: just remove exit_irq_thread() in merged variant). That's for-next-variant2. With that variant we get 5 more duplicates with next/akpm, obviously.
Stephen, which way would you prefer it handled?
| |