linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the vfs-brauner tree

linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in:

  virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c

between commit:

  ca3f437d9769 ("kvm: convert kvm_arch_supports_gmem_init_shared() to FD_PREPARE()")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:

  497b1dfbcacf ("KVM: guest_memfd: Rename "struct kvm_gmem" to "struct gmem_file"")
  a63ca4236e67 ("KVM: guest_memfd: Use guest mem inodes instead of anonymous inodes")
  e66438bb81c4 ("KVM: guest_memfd: Add gmem_inode.flags field instead of using i_private")

from the kvm-x86 tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version as the conflict is a bit
difficult) 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.

If somone can provide a better resolution, that would be nice.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Sean Christopherson]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ca3f437d9769 ("kvm: convert kvm_arch_supports_gmem_init_shared() to FD_PREPARE()")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
> 
>   497b1dfbcacf ("KVM: guest_memfd: Rename "struct kvm_gmem" to "struct gmem_file"")
>   a63ca4236e67 ("KVM: guest_memfd: Use guest mem inodes instead of anonymous inodes")
>   e66438bb81c4 ("KVM: guest_memfd: Add gmem_inode.flags field instead of using i_private")
> 
> from the kvm-x86 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version as the conflict is a bit
> difficult) 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.
> 
> If somone can provide a better resolution, that would be nice.

Christian, please drop your KVM changes from and send "standalone" KVM-only patches
after the FD_{ADD,PREPARE}() infrastructure has landed.

Shoving things like that into -next just before the merge window, without having
been Cc'd to the relevant maintainers or even kvm@, without changelogs, and on a
short week for many of us, is not acceptable.