Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:07:12 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rseq tree with Linus' tree |
| |
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Mathieu, > > [I may regret adding the rseq tree ...] > > Today's linux-next merge of the rseq tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S > > between commits: > > 9da78ba6b47b ("x86/entry/64: Remove the restore_c_regs_and_iret label") > 26c4ef9c49d8 ("x86/entry/64: Split the IRET-to-user and IRET-to-kernel paths") > e53178328c9b ("x86/entry/64: Shrink paranoid_exit_restore and make labels local") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 60a77bfd24d5 ("membarrier: x86: Provide core serializing command (v2)") > > from the rseq 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.
NAK!
There's absolutely no way such invasive x86 changes should be done outside the x86 tree and be merged into linux-next.
linux-next should be for the regular maintenance flow, for changes pushed by maintainers and part of the regular maintenance process - not for work-in-progress features that may or may not be merged upstream in that form ...
Thanks,
Ingo
| |