linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the origin 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, 22 Feb 2022 02:35:39 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     broonie@...nel.org
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the origin tree

On 2/22/2022 2:08 AM, broonie@...nel.org wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the slab tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/slab.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   07f910f9b7295 ("mm: Remove slab from struct page")
>   d122019bf061c ("mm: Split slab into its own type")
>   4b5f8d9a895ad ("mm/memcg: Convert slab objcgs from struct page to struct slab")
> 
> from the origin tree and commit:
> 
>   b9059d7a5face ("mm: Split slab into its own type")
>   90fbf2f30c38f ("mm/memcg: Convert slab objcgs from struct page to struct slab")

Weird, these commits are old and unreachable, this is from before the merge
window. The slab tree for-next is here, Stephen has been incorporating it for
some time:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vbabka/slab.git/log/?h=for-next

Same thing with your other mail wrt mm/zsmalloc.c

> 
> from the slab 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.
> 
> [I took the origin versions]