Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-157685-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 23:29:46 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
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>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the modules tree with the mm tree
Message-ID: <ZilrutXaEB0laSvr@kernel.org>
References: <20240424123935.2f65e886@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20240424130757.531be2842c505a62246d180c@linux-foundation.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240424130757.531be2842c505a62246d180c@linux-foundation.org>

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:07:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton 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-contained")
> >   18da532eefc8 ("mm/execmem, arch: convert remaining overrides of module_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 here.

I can rebase it on mm-unstable and this can go via the mm tree.
 
> Suren&Kent, please review (and preferably) test Stephen's handiwork in
> linux-next?
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.