linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the mips tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20200529141546.8fcc75eecdba416a26e269cf@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 14:15:46 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the mips
 tree

On Thu, 28 May 2020 19:29:43 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/memory.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   7df676974359 ("mm/memory.c: Update local TLB if PTE entry exists")
> 
> from the mips tree and commit:
> 
>   e325f89fdd69 ("mm: memcontrol: convert anon and file-thp to new mem_cgroup_charge() API")
> 
> from the akpm-current 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.
> 
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@@ -2752,9 -2748,6 +2749,8 @@@ static vm_fault_t wp_page_copy(struct v
>   		/* Free the old page.. */
>   		new_page = old_page;
>   		page_copied = 1;
>  +	} else {
>  +		update_mmu_tlb(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
> - 		mem_cgroup_cancel_charge(new_page, memcg, false);
>   	}
>   
>   	if (new_page)

We decided that the update_mmu_tlb() call is no longer needed here, so
there is no need to re-add it when resolving this.