netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm 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: <CAADnVQJB+4SY66r7oe+d4=qf+d96OmHb4o1763AQUw7MhdwDYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:33:06 +0100
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	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 bpf-next tree with the mm tree

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 2:30 PM Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:04:22 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   mm/page_owner.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   a5bc091881fd ("mm: page_owner: use new iteration API")
> >
> > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> >
> >   8c57b687e833 ("mm, bpf: Introduce free_pages_nolock()")
> >
> > from the bpf-next tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) 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 looks good to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@...hat.com>

Looks good to me as well.
Thanks