[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DC16J93QUQGV.4Z8STIPX6MGM@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 11:07:26 +0200
From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@...nel.org>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, "Simona Vetter"
<simona.vetter@...ll.ch>, "Vitaly Wool" <vitaly.wool@...sulko.se>, "Intel
Graphics" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "DRI"
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Linux Next Mailing List"
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-unstable tree with the
drm-misc-fixes tree
On Wed Aug 13, 2025 at 5:59 AM CEST, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Well that's messy.
I think it's not too bad, the changes are just too close to each other -- no
semantic conflict.
As a general heads-up, Rust code is a bit more prone to conflicts.
On one hand this is due to the more powerful type system and components of
different subsystems being a bit closer connected to each other to provide
additional safety guarantees.
On the other hand, there's simply a lot of foundational work going on in
parallel.
For the Rust parts that are maintained under your mm tree, I think it should
generally stay well within limits though.
> Is it intended that the containing series ("Alloc and drm::Device
> fixes") be merged into 6.17-rcX?
Yes, not sure if it will be in -rc2 already, but should be in -rc3. So, the
conflict in -next should vanish in case you backmerge the corresponding -rc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists