Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-157675-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240424123935.2f65e886@canb.auug.org.au> <20240424130757.531be2842c505a62246d180c@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240424130757.531be2842c505a62246d180c@linux-foundation.org>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:17:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpG-D+m4Uym=9LA5O5hYd=Y6fwVxELb17Dhmfkg87Rzr5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the modules tree with the mm tree
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@kernel.org>, 
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:08=E2=80=AFPM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundatio=
n.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 12:39:35 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au=
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the modules tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   kernel/module/main.c
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> >   7f014cdda4cb ("lib: code tagging module support")
> >   5ab9b0c7ea5c ("lib: prevent module unloading if memory is not freed")
> >
> > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commits:
> >
> >   0746f9982603 ("module: make module_memory_{alloc,free} more self-cont=
ained")
> >   18da532eefc8 ("mm/execmem, arch: convert remaining overrides of modul=
e_alloc to execmem")
> >
> > from the modules 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 a shame.  I don't see much that we can do to reduce the damage her=
e.
>
> Suren&Kent, please review (and preferably) test Stephen's handiwork in
> linux-next?

Sure, I'll try it out today afternoon. Thanks!

>