linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the mm-unstable 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: <1c082ae4-f5a6-4385-8c31-1db2d0890e9c@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 10:39:47 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Qianfeng Rong <rongqianfeng@...o.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the mm-unstable
 tree

On 9/4/25 08:29, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> FIXME: Add owner of second tree to To:
>        Add author(s)/SOB of conflicting commits.
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the slab tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/vma/vma_internal.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   da018ebb7157 ("tools/testing/vma: clean up stubs in vma_internal.h")

We can solve it by me taking this and

  65d011b2bc05 ("maple_tree: remove redundant __GFP_NOWARN")

from the other thread and Andrew dropping them in mm-unstable. I tried to
rebase mm-unstable locally while dropping those and there were no conflicts
and they are self-contained cleanups. AFAIR Andrew was fine with such
resolutions in the past.

Thanks.

> from the mm-unstable tree and commits:
> 
>   cbb6a30df135 ("tools/testing/vma: Implement vm_refcnt reset")
>   6602bcbdfbad ("tools/testing: Add support for changes to slab for sheaves")
> 
> from the slab tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the latter version) 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.
>