diff mbox series

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the mm tree

Message ID 20230616115856.3ce7682c@canb.auug.org.au
State New
Headers
Series linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the mm tree |

Commit Message

Stephen Rothwell June 16, 2023, 1:58 a.m. UTC 
  Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  mm/gup.c

between commit:

  0f3f569eca46 ("mm/gup.c: reorganize try_get_folio()")

from the mm tree and commit:

  c8070b787519 ("mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (I think - 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.

Comments

Andrew Morton June 16, 2023, 3:50 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:58:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/gup.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0f3f569eca46 ("mm/gup.c: reorganize try_get_folio()")
> 
> from the mm tree and commit:
> 
>   c8070b787519 ("mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.

That's getting a bit nasty.  Maybe David's patches are in the wrong tree.
David Howells June 16, 2023, 9:56 a.m. UTC | #2 
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> That's getting a bit nasty.  Maybe David's patches are in the wrong tree.

You'd need to discuss that one with Jens.  The patches you'd have to transfer
also touch a number of block-related files.  Looking at block/for-next, there
don't seem to be many other patches touching those files, but I've seen
patches from Christoph that will need to be applied on top of mine.

David
Jens Axboe June 16, 2023, 4:07 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 6/16/23 3:56?AM, David Howells wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> That's getting a bit nasty.  Maybe David's patches are in the wrong
>> tree.
> 
> You'd need to discuss that one with Jens.  The patches you'd have to
> transfer also touch a number of block-related files.  Looking at
> block/for-next, there don't seem to be many other patches touching
> those files, but I've seen patches from Christoph that will need to be
> applied on top of mine.

It's definitely a bit of a mess now, but for-6.5/block also depends on
these changes and make further tweaks on the block front.

for-6.5/splice is stable, so just pull that in?
Vishal Moola June 16, 2023, 7:44 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 6:59 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
>   mm/gup.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   0f3f569eca46 ("mm/gup.c: reorganize try_get_folio()")
>
> from the mm tree and commit:
>
>   c8070b787519 ("mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()")
>
> from the block tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.

Thanks for fixing these up. I'll keep an eye out for conflicts in
linux-next as well
in the future.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --cc mm/gup.c
index ce14d4d28503,0814576b7366..000000000000
--- a/mm/gup.c