[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4ifCnbY_b_0J3O4U-N5ZcDUkEycqztDi75W-fyApLq6zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 07:10:58 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the vfs tree
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
>
> lib/iov_iter.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e33ea6e5ba6a ("x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess speculation")
>
> from the vfs tree and commit:
>
> 0a78de3d4b7b ("x86, powerpc: Rename memcpy_mcsafe() to copy_mc_to_{user, kernel}()")
>
> from the nvdimm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter, but I suspect that more work is
> needed) 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.
I messed up, this shouldn't be present in -next, yet. Will remove.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists