From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47763C433E1 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 00:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456FC206B5 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 00:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b="HEuQszfw" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726175AbgHGAmh (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 20:42:37 -0400 Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org ([203.11.71.1]:52467 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725998AbgHGAmg (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 20:42:36 -0400 Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BN65M4MR4z9sTC; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:42:31 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1596760953; bh=jRNJx5IfknaND6+jGAaPwyuYIvtYOZjhhbHZBTHzTqU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=HEuQszfwZ5Yx7GM8Fjf05TsHNRdKQhtsozdXgo7u1Tv7Xl3f6Cl2pk1FYntcgzzb+ 4Jq8DwmzQqMAap2K+nh/ovtW4OpUnVIUEuzQAq/N/DFeKjGXTzg6Z5KWkEe58su95t ndBHcdfHCo4L6DOSyOn1ZiLzIaD3hT1+Sdp1HE+9lcxbss5kDsKsw5Rg9VcgL0/O/r DzTl3MztgdUljUOhg3/iR2GBjfyaLxkZjocR+pGxl0uP2VUOmOtKavKteJJd9mYAzb zuFB+qD4bOIi6T8z0sFK8ItEIYMrsUX3hvy/uIEvYIHq7FUJprOkFolGGi96YSLYfR QE2CxBc3jZjGQ== Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 10:42:30 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Max Filippov , Rich Felker Cc: Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Michael Karcher Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xtensa tree with the sh tree Message-ID: <20200807104230.7f659cbb@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20200728102330.11f78570@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20200728102330.11f78570@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/1wtY195/p6ODi2.NtLB12DW"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/1wtY195/p6ODi2.NtLB12DW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:23:30 +1000 Stephen Rothwell = wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the xtensa tree got a conflict in: >=20 > tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c >=20 > between commit: >=20 > 469023465e79 ("sh: Add SECCOMP_FILTER") >=20 > from the sh tree and commit: >=20 > deccfc9ce639 ("selftests/seccomp: add xtensa support") >=20 > from the xtensa tree. >=20 > 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. >=20 > diff --cc tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > index 06d994a34997,1b445c2e7fbe..000000000000 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c > @@@ -124,8 -122,8 +124,10 @@@ struct seccomp_data=20 > # define __NR_seccomp 358 > # elif defined(__s390__) > # define __NR_seccomp 348 > +# elif defined(__sh__) > +# define __NR_seccomp 372 > + # elif defined(__xtensa__) > + # define __NR_seccomp 337 > # else > # warning "seccomp syscall number unknown for this architecture" > # define __NR_seccomp 0xffff > @@@ -1634,10 -1624,14 +1636,18 @@@ TEST_F(TRACE_poke, getpid_runs_normally > # define SYSCALL_SYSCALL_NUM regs[4] > # define SYSCALL_RET regs[2] > # define SYSCALL_NUM_RET_SHARE_REG > +#elif defined(__sh__) > +# define ARCH_REGS struct pt_regs > +# define SYSCALL_NUM gpr[3] > +# define SYSCALL_RET gpr[0] > + #elif defined(__xtensa__) > + # define ARCH_REGS struct user_pt_regs > + # define SYSCALL_NUM syscall > + /* > + * On xtensa syscall return value is in the register > + * a2 of the current window which is not fixed. > + */ > + #define SYSCALL_RET(reg) a[(reg).windowbase * 4 + 2] > #else > # error "Do not know how to find your architecture's registers and sysc= alls" > #endif > @@@ -1710,7 -1704,7 +1720,7 @@@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metad > =20 > #if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__i386__) || defined(__powerpc__) ||= \ > defined(__s390__) || defined(__hppa__) || defined(__riscv) || \ > - defined(__csky__) || defined(__sh__) > - defined(__xtensa__) > ++ defined(__csky__) || defined(__sh__) || defined(__xtensa__) > { > regs.SYSCALL_NUM =3D syscall; > } This is now a conflict between the sh tree and Linus' tree. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/1wtY195/p6ODi2.NtLB12DW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAl8so3YACgkQAVBC80lX 0GxTRAf9GNvBk6UmbMk9jCAC13xvYqY5oLUeFiieeeitAdEzpIjGLCV5SfqbILPy eb6U+B1whGmdBvOeOXB+fVAg1/iKy6V1+mfEzAeCpGsJDIOHa1ApXSyYEE+InVTn yOJDO8Bv4qkAHQ2u5uY/lINz+IkhDUV/2saUEdKFHqnhAtbAjt1yU5q9WlSTaiMa VqC71qZLZcC+HdBeUgkmYqXbzlnqXgWjEJ/KOcH1xZzbyZDesnuPdBhgztKxGezH s/dO3sV5RD91MuSyZ+MMC2EAjz+b3LMO/LaIzdvcWzKKHhQdoLTPEneOYxRy/w/A TzCQth3WFGX+rj+itrqpxw+Bl09aqw== =kyJW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/1wtY195/p6ODi2.NtLB12DW--