[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220216172109.72fd0a38@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:21:09 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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
Hi Matthew,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:12:05 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
It looks like Andrew now has a new version of Hugh's patches and there
are quite a few other conflicts as well (see my attempt at mm/gup.c).
I have used the folio tree from next-20220204 again for today, sorry.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists