linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the mm 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]

Message-ID: <20240902091802.bitm7jutsit6adwj@quentin>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:18:02 +0000
From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>,
	Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the mm tree

On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 11:21:01AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/huge_mm.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   bc47772ebe8b ("mm: introduce a pageflag for partially mapped folios")
> 
> from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> 
>   fd031210c9ce ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner 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.

Thanks Stephen.

The changes look good to me.

There is also another fix in this commit that I will be sending out very
soon.

@Christian and @Stephen:

I see that fs-next still does not have the mm-unstable changes. When I
send the fix, should I base it on:

- vfs.blocksize branch from Christian?

or

- linux-next which has latest mm changes?

--
Pankaj