From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout-p-202.mailbox.org (mout-p-202.mailbox.org [80.241.56.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70898156993; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725268696; cv=none; b=jKT35X7o5LZ7zE6w37khG8FAOXa9ur+xST2lsFRzc//hLLo0Z7kP4ZOpphMyWuYd69U7obGCIcfsHarzpYHOMIJleQ4CMPxU+SnKSbELK/aN8bYx9HsiGa4W7z0YwID3k42OHj8KAEiqx1vSSYC0dWwrHv0pKHiH3Wjo5eGo4D4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725268696; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vV+W+1SdJLosGo7vnr+ALq7HsNk9d757a5CIu0ptfrE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KdxImWQhBjz+1tlAaobetZAPItJPYJgKbb8EPBYb6j3PzPqvcY4PBtguSqIgIHaW3hCS7YkA6Eg4h1o9KUjCEhs8NziyWkWS5HEBbWMsP8/CSqcYP9FFAqy5zMY5p1lCCuH/HQzwxE58X73RLosP2HBLtDjjkYV1VWJPBT9ct6Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=pankajraghav.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pankajraghav.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pankajraghav.com header.i=@pankajraghav.com header.b=YBp5SFOP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=80.241.56.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=pankajraghav.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pankajraghav.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pankajraghav.com header.i=@pankajraghav.com header.b="YBp5SFOP" Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [10.196.197.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-202.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Wy37z1yZxz9sRn; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 11:18:07 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pankajraghav.com; s=MBO0001; t=1725268687; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=+aTVW8R+fk9ktaLY3UYaXeuwp9d+gVqJvqvYXjWWjxM=; b=YBp5SFOPKd2GLKDd9KpA/PeqYCBVMMskCTgd6A6sOMyTDsPI3oQxdTQlsH0a0+/3tpw2qa fadOzLFM1zw2gpCGX4iBH0XYkL/1W2C/g8tUQMDAmpMiOcKTYpzsIFYmRpsxvy89lk513+ vJpAcOiVGbaprXDCHLakF9xtWNnHSPC97Tot8kl29xOL5j1/+jDBoF9uKVgeqyMn3Mo3Jm hyoB/R7xJkLhbK2DTXAvZZxbCwO2Lv650KBjW6DFqW2QJNT94U6LKPjy5O7jK8dBGMkVxa 8VMy+bcC9leyw+yB/CPe7tNLzCDkzfoB9q+cJWPCLDHDDUZVVn78s6D3YOJhpA== Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 09:18:02 +0000 From: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Christian Brauner , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List , Luis Chamberlain , Pankaj Raghav , Usama Arif Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the mm tree Message-ID: <20240902091802.bitm7jutsit6adwj@quentin> References: <20240902112101.2728f045@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240902112101.2728f045@canb.auug.org.au> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 11:21:01AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/huge_mm.h > > between commit: > > bc47772ebe8b ("mm: introduce a pageflag for partially mapped folios") > > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit: > > fd031210c9ce ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") > > from the vfs-brauner 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. Thanks Stephen. The changes look good to me. There is also another fix in this commit that I will be sending out very soon. @Christian and @Stephen: I see that fs-next still does not have the mm-unstable changes. When I send the fix, should I base it on: - vfs.blocksize branch from Christian? or - linux-next which has latest mm changes? -- Pankaj