linux-kernel - 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220408150800.06ebf216@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:08:00 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the folio
 tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:

  mm/mempolicy.c

between commit:

  ec4858e07ed6 ("mm/mempolicy: Use vma_alloc_folio() in new_page()")

from the folio tree and commit:

  c5b406e86042 ("mm: migrate: use thp_order instead of HPAGE_PMD_ORDER for new page allocation.")

from the akpm-current tree.

I fixed it up (I just ued the former change) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped