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

Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:12:05 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the folio
 tree

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 06:00:43PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   include/linux/mm.h
>   include/linux/rmap.h
>   mm/gup.c
>   mm/huge_memory.c
>   mm/internal.h
>   mm/memory-failure.c
>   mm/migrate.c
>   mm/mlock.c
>   mm/rmap.c
>   mm/vmscan.c
> 
> There is no way I can figure out in a reasonable time (or at all
> probably) the resolution needed here.  You guys need to get together
> and figure out how the folio tree changes are going to progress to
> Linus' tree.
> 
> I have gone back and used the folio tree from next-20220204 again for
> today.

Thanks!

My plan is to take v2 of Hugh's mlock rewrite into my tree today and
redo the folio changes on top of those.  That should reduce the amount
of conflict between akpm's tree and the folio tree to the usual
managable amount.  Let's see how that goes.