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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20251204165609.11bd70d4@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 16:56:09 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon
 <will@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 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

Hi Anshuman,

On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 08:55:54 +0530 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
>
> 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 ?

No, it should just be mentioned to Linus in he PR.  He would figure it
out anyway.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped