Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
lib/iov_iter.c
between commit:
e33ea6e5ba6a ("x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess speculation")
from the vfs tree and commit:
0a78de3d4b7b ("x86, powerpc: Rename memcpy_mcsafe() to copy_mc_to_{user, kernel}()")
from the nvdimm tree.
I fixed it up (I just used the latter, but I suspect that more work is
needed) 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
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
>
> lib/iov_iter.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e33ea6e5ba6a ("x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess speculation")
>
> from the vfs tree and commit:
>
> 0a78de3d4b7b ("x86, powerpc: Rename memcpy_mcsafe() to copy_mc_to_{user, kernel}()")
>
> from the nvdimm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter, but I suspect that more work is
> needed) 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.
I messed up, this shouldn't be present in -next, yet. Will remove.
[ add Ingo ]
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:10 AM Dan Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > lib/iov_iter.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > e33ea6e5ba6a ("x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess speculation")
> >
> > from the vfs tree and commit:
> >
> > 0a78de3d4b7b ("x86, powerpc: Rename memcpy_mcsafe() to copy_mc_to_{user, kernel}()")
> >
> > from the nvdimm tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just used the latter, but I suspect that more work is
> > needed) 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.
>
> I messed up, this shouldn't be present in -next, yet. Will remove.
Oh, wait, this isn't from a new push this was back from the v5.9 merge
attempt and is only just now causing conflicts. Ingo, how does tip.git
usually coordinate with vfs.git? Should I rebase on vfs / work the
copy_mc_to_{user,kernel} patches through Al, or?