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]
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ