linux-next: manual merge of the bitmap tree with the arm64 tree

linux-next: manual merge of the bitmap tree with the arm64 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1898 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  include/linux/gfp.h

between commit:

  70c248aca9e7 ("mm: kasan: Skip unpoisoning of user pages")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

  34973181c728 ("headers/deps: mm: Split <linux/gfp_types.h> out of <linux/gfp.h>")

from the bitmap tree.

I fixed it up (I used the latter version of this files and applied the
following merge resolution patch) 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.

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 19:45:25 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] fix up for "mm: kasan: Skip unpoisoning of user pages"

interacting with "headers/deps: mm: Split <linux/gfp_types.h> out of
<linux/gfp.h>"

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 include/linux/gfp_types.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/gfp_types.h b/include/linux/gfp_types.h
index 06fc85cee23f..d88c46ca82e1 100644
--- a/include/linux/gfp_types.h
+++ b/include/linux/gfp_types.h
@@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ typedef unsigned int __bitwise gfp_t;
 #define GFP_DMA32	__GFP_DMA32
 #define GFP_HIGHUSER	(GFP_USER | __GFP_HIGHMEM)
 #define GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE	(GFP_HIGHUSER | __GFP_MOVABLE | \
-			 __GFP_SKIP_KASAN_POISON)
+			 __GFP_SKIP_KASAN_POISON | __GFP_SKIP_KASAN_UNPOISON)
 #define GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT	((GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE | __GFP_COMP | \
 			 __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN) & ~__GFP_RECLAIM)
 #define GFP_TRANSHUGE	(GFP_TRANSHUGE_LIGHT | __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM)
-- 
2.35.1

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the bitmap tree with the arm64 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2279 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  include/linux/cpumask.h

between commit:

  4e1a7df45480 ("cpumask: Add enabled cpumask for present CPUs that can be brought online")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

  5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro")

from the bitmap tree.

I fixed it up (I just did the obvious - 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc include/linux/cpumask.h
index 099e8b32dd68,18410acdbc9e..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
@@@ -1033,32 -1083,13 +1033,22 @@@ void init_cpu_present(const struct cpum
  void init_cpu_possible(const struct cpumask *src);
  void init_cpu_online(const struct cpumask *src);
  
- static inline void
- set_cpu_possible(unsigned int cpu, bool possible)
- {
- 	if (possible)
- 		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_possible_mask);
- 	else
- 		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_possible_mask);
- }
- 
 +static inline void
 +set_cpu_enabled(unsigned int cpu, bool can_be_onlined)
 +{
 +	if (can_be_onlined)
 +		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_enabled_mask);
 +	else
 +		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_enabled_mask);
 +}
 +
- static inline void
- set_cpu_present(unsigned int cpu, bool present)
- {
- 	if (present)
- 		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_present_mask);
- 	else
- 		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &__cpu_present_mask);
- }
+ #define assign_cpu(cpu, mask, val)	\
+ 	assign_bit(cpumask_check(cpu), cpumask_bits(mask), (val))
+ 
+ #define set_cpu_possible(cpu, possible)	assign_cpu((cpu), &__cpu_possible_mask, (possible))
+ #define set_cpu_present(cpu, present)	assign_cpu((cpu), &__cpu_present_mask, (present))
+ #define set_cpu_active(cpu, active)	assign_cpu((cpu), &__cpu_active_mask, (active))
+ #define set_cpu_dying(cpu, dying)	assign_cpu((cpu), &__cpu_dying_mask, (dying))
  
  void set_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu, bool online);
  

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bitmap tree with the arm64 tree

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:50:51 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bitmap tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/cpumask.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4e1a7df45480 ("cpumask: Add enabled cpumask for present CPUs that can be brought online")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
> 
>   5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro")
> 
> from the bitmap tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just did the obvious - 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 Stephen,

We can make a similar change to the others in 
 5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro")
but to avoid merge complexity probably easier to just do it next cycle.

Jonathan

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bitmap tree with the arm64 tree

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:07:50AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 17:50:51 +1000
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the bitmap tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   include/linux/cpumask.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   4e1a7df45480 ("cpumask: Add enabled cpumask for present CPUs that can be brought online")
> > 
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > 
> >   5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro")
> > 
> > from the bitmap tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I just did the obvious - 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 Stephen,
> 
> We can make a similar change to the others in 
>  5c563ee90a22 ("cpumask: introduce assign_cpu() macro")
> but to avoid merge complexity probably easier to just do it next cycle.

We can add a patch at -rc1 once both trees got merged, we do this
occasionally.

-- 
Catalin