linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip 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: <20260109113921.5769acfa1d0c08628aeb7217@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:39:21 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin"
 <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Linux Kernel
 Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 20:24:04 +0100 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 11:17:44AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > This is utterly impractical without support from the x86 maintainers.
> > 
> > I upstream a *lot* of patchsets which alter x86.
> > 
> > I looked once.  5% of those patches had an Acked-by or Reviewed-by from
> > an x86 maintainer.
> > 
> > I cc you guys until I'm blue in the face and it's always crickets.  I
> > simply cannot permit MM or kexec progress to be blocked by the
> > unresponsiveness of the x86 team.  It's very regrettable but it's
> > almost always the case that I just have to proceed without your
> > assistance.
> 
> Well, cross-tree issues like that aren't fun either. And you know very well
> that we're all overworked and drowning in patches. So it's not like we're
> ignoring stuff or whatnot, on purpose.
> 
> So it sounds like we need to decide upon a scheme where we work together
> better and don't step on each-other's toes like that. Lemme talk to tglx.

Cool thanks.

I'm not particularly concerned about these integration and build issues. 
Shit happens, that's what -next is for and we fix things quickly.

My main concern is to avoid placing too many developers on the critical
path for MM development.

I mean, it's a really common thing.  Because we all love statistics,
mm.git MM development branches presently hold 262 patches, 16 of which
alter arch/86!

mm-page_alloc-prevent-pcp-corruption-with-smp=n.patch
x86-kfence-avoid-writing-l1tf-vulnerable-ptes.patch
x86-xen-simplify-flush_lazy_mmu.patch
mm-introduce-config_arch_has_lazy_mmu_mode.patch
mm-introduce-generic-lazy_mmu-helpers.patch
x86-xen-use-lazy_mmu_state-when-context-switching.patch
treewide-provide-a-generic-clear_user_page-variant.patch
x86-mm-simplify-clear_page_.patch
x86-clear_page-introduce-clear_pages.patch
mm-make-pt_reclaim-depends-on-mmu_gather_rcu_table_free.patch
x86-introduce-arch_zone_limits_init.patch
arch-mm-consolidate-initialization-of-nodes-zones-and-memory-map.patch
arch-mm-consolidate-initialization-of-sparse-memory-model.patch
x86-dont-reserve-hugetlb-memory-in-setup_arch.patch
mm-arch-consolidate-hugetlb-cma-reservation.patch
mm-numa_emu-add-document-for-numa-emulation.patch

> > This particular patchset is a kexec thing so I added it for testing
> > because I look after kexec.  I'll drop it and shall trust you to handle
> > Coiby's contribution in an appropriate fashion.
> 
> Yap, I'm on it.

Thanks.