Merge branch 'linus' into x86/boot, to resolve conflict

There's a new conflict with Linus's upstream tree, because
in the following merge conflict resolution in <asm/coco.h>:

  38b334fc767e Merge tag 'x86_sev_for_v6.9_rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip

Linus has resolved the conflicting placement of 'cc_mask' better
than the original commit:

  1c811d403afd x86/sev: Fix position dependent variable references in startup code

... which was also done by an internal merge resolution:

  2e5fc4786b7a Merge branch 'x86/sev' into x86/boot, to resolve conflicts and to pick up dependent tree

But Linus is right in 38b334fc767e, the 'cc_mask' declaration is sufficient
within the #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM block.

So instead of forcing Linus to do the same resolution again, merge in Linus's
tree and follow his conflict resolution.

 Conflicts:
	arch/x86/include/asm/coco.h

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 13 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs b/rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs
index f12a684bc957..5b5c8efe427a 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/sync/lock.rs
@@ -21,14 +21,21 @@ pub mod spinlock;
 /// # Safety
 ///
 /// - Implementers must ensure that only one thread/CPU may access the protected data once the lock
-/// is owned, that is, between calls to `lock` and `unlock`.
-/// - Implementers must also ensure that `relock` uses the same locking method as the original
-/// lock operation.
+///   is owned, that is, between calls to [`lock`] and [`unlock`].
+/// - Implementers must also ensure that [`relock`] uses the same locking method as the original
+///   lock operation.
+///
+/// [`lock`]: Backend::lock
+/// [`unlock`]: Backend::unlock
+/// [`relock`]: Backend::relock
 pub unsafe trait Backend {
     /// The state required by the lock.
     type State;
 
-    /// The state required to be kept between lock and unlock.
+    /// The state required to be kept between [`lock`] and [`unlock`].
+    ///
+    /// [`lock`]: Backend::lock
+    /// [`unlock`]: Backend::unlock
     type GuardState;
 
     /// Initialises the lock.
@@ -139,7 +146,7 @@ pub struct Guard<'a, T: ?Sized, B: Backend> {
 unsafe impl<T: Sync + ?Sized, B: Backend> Sync for Guard<'_, T, B> {}
 
 impl<T: ?Sized, B: Backend> Guard<'_, T, B> {
-    pub(crate) fn do_unlocked(&mut self, cb: impl FnOnce()) {
+    pub(crate) fn do_unlocked<U>(&mut self, cb: impl FnOnce() -> U) -> U {
         // SAFETY: The caller owns the lock, so it is safe to unlock it.
         unsafe { B::unlock(self.lock.state.get(), &self.state) };
 
@@ -147,7 +154,7 @@ impl<T: ?Sized, B: Backend> Guard<'_, T, B> {
         let _relock =
             ScopeGuard::new(|| unsafe { B::relock(self.lock.state.get(), &mut self.state) });
 
-        cb();
+        cb()
     }
 }