linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251028140807.GM3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:08:07 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"Emil Tsalapatis (Meta)" <emil@...alapatis.com>,
	Emil Tsalapatis <etsal@...a.com>,
	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 tip tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 03:10:43PM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 11:22:05AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   kernel/sched/ext.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   a8ad873113d3 ("sched_ext: defer queue_balance_callback() until after ops.dispatch")
> > 
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> > 
> >   4c95380701f5 ("sched/ext: Fold balance_scx() into pick_task_scx()")
> > 
> > from the tip tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below - but I was not sure if the
> > "maybe_queue_balance_callback(rq);" is positioned correctly) 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.
> 
> I resolved this in sched_ext/for-6.19 by pulling for-6.18-fixes but yeah the
> conflict is through tip/sched/core. I think your resolution is correct and
> matches sched_ext/for-6.19 (sans whitespaces).
> 
> I don't know how tip tree resolves these conflicts but either way - leaving
> it as-is until the merge window, or pulling master and resolving in tip - is
> fine from sched_ext POV. I can sync with tip/sched/core as necessary.

tip/sched/core should now have that merge resolved properly too.

Thanks!