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: <0d45f76f-19a8-4ea3-92b0-95b63474c9cd@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:46:30 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 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 11/14/25 06:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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 can take that patch as mm-unstable (not -stable) means it's still
droppable there at this point.

> 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.

That's also true. Thomas, is this case special or what motivated the patch
in the first place?