* Stephen Rothwell <s...@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
