Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:50:14 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the mm tree
Message-Id: <20230615205014.8d7eb4457ca9bc676a79d2db@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230616115856.3ce7682c@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <20230616115856.3ce7682c@canb.auug.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 11:58:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/gup.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0f3f569eca46 ("mm/gup.c: reorganize try_get_folio()")
> 
> from the mm tree and commit:
> 
>   c8070b787519 ("mm: Don't pin ZERO_PAGE in pin_user_pages()")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.

That's getting a bit nasty.  Maybe David's patches are in the wrong tree.