[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230615205014.8d7eb4457ca9bc676a79d2db@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:50:14 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the mm tree
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:58:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> mm/gup.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 0f3f569eca46 ("mm/gup.c: reorganize try_get_folio()")
>
> from the mm tree and commit:
>
> c8070b787519 ("mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()")
>
> from the block tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.
That's getting a bit nasty. Maybe David's patches are in the wrong tree.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists