linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <90164a38-2aa5-4d3d-85b3-29a9a8b6d9b7@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 08:55:54 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 "Cc: Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chaitanya S Prakash <chaitanyas.prakash@....com>,
 Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@....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 arm64 tree with the mm-unstable
 tree



On 04/12/25 7:30 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:21:44 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   2b9cdb805fcd ("mm: make INVALID_PHYS_ADDR a generic macro")
>>
>> from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
>>
>>   bfc184cb1ba7 ("arm64/mm: Allow __create_pgd_mapping() to propagate pgtable_alloc() errors")
>>
>> from the arm64 tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (the latter moved the INVALID_PHYS_ADDR define so I removed
>> it from its new place, and there was no conflict left) 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.
> 
> This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

Should this be rebased against Linus's tree in mm-stable first before the pull request ?