Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200924164529.61ea980f@canb.auug.org.au> <CAPcyv4ifCnbY_b_0J3O4U-N5ZcDUkEycqztDi75W-fyApLq6zw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4ifCnbY_b_0J3O4U-N5ZcDUkEycqztDi75W-fyApLq6zw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 07:31:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4h2iWKn-QWXp-RdizX2NNT9uxM5ko2tYSNs-XA7ZPmw9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the vfs tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

[ add Ingo ]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:10 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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?