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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251114050605.GA26424@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 06:06:05 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	"Cc: Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the slab tree with the mm-unstable
 tree

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 03:13:21PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the slab tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/mempool.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   25c4d8d29dbb ("mempool: clarify behavior of mempool_alloc_preallocated()")
> 
> from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
> 
>   5c829783e5f8 ("mempool: improve kerneldoc comments")

Hmm, I guess we need to agree on which tree takes mempool patches, then
we can just rebase one side.

I also find 25c4d8d29dbb odd.  Yes, with PREEMPT_RT anything taking
spinlocks could sleep in the normal sense, but pretty much everything
in Linux assumes spinlocks as spinning.  So if we want to update that
we should agree on global conventions for it and not starting to update
random little functions individually.