Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-157735-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240424123935.2f65e886@canb.auug.org.au> <20240424130757.531be2842c505a62246d180c@linux-foundation.org>
 <ZilrutXaEB0laSvr@kernel.org> <CAJuCfpFmZmw-CW17OWjmxzh5BdXsc7a_1HcdEL7kmLTZDpU5kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpFmZmw-CW17OWjmxzh5BdXsc7a_1HcdEL7kmLTZDpU5kw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 21:24:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFT7tBigfSEO2iGKn5YtB0hFgVF-2Sfh+60nAO7drCeqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the modules tree with the mm tree
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 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>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:33=E2=80=AFPM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.c=
om> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 1:31=E2=80=AFPM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> w=
rote:
> >
> > 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.or=
g.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 fre=
ed")
> > > >
> > > > 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 m=
odule_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 maintain=
er
> > > > when your tree is submitted for merging.  You may also want to cons=
ider
> > > > 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.
>
> Conflict resolution looks fine to me. I'll run relevant tests on
> linux-next within 2 hours.

Tests are passing and module loading/unloading works fine on linux-next.

>
> >
> > > Suren&Kent, please review (and preferably) test Stephen's handiwork i=
n
> > > linux-next?
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Mike.