Hi Breno,
On 12/06/2026 10:19, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello Matthieu,
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 02:52:36PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>> + /*
>>> + * iov_iter_extract_pages() pins only user-backed (ubuf) iters;
>>> + * iov_iter_extract_will_pin() reports whether an unpin is owed here.
>>> + */
>>> + if (pages && iov_iter_extract_will_pin(&opt->iter_out))
>>> unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pages);
>>
>> FYI, we got a small conflict when merging 'net' in 'net-next' in the
>> MPTCP tree due to this patch applied in 'net':
>>
>> f512db8267b73 ("rds: mark snapshot pages dirty in rds_info_getsockopt()")
>>
>> and this one from 'net-next':
>>
>> 6e94eeb2a2a6 ("rds: convert to getsockopt_iter")
>
> I was aware of the conflict but didn't realize a note would be helpful
> for the merge. I should have included one.
>
> Could you point me to an example commit/patch that contains such a note so I
> can understand the expected format and procedure?
In this particular example, I think it would have been easier to have
waited for the fix to land in net-next -- after the weekly sync with net
-- and then send the net-next patches.
When this cannot be avoided, then you can mention the conflict, and
ideally share a diff of the resolution, plus a description, especially
when it is not obvious, when simply saying "take the version from X" is
helpful, when extra modifications are needed, etc. e.g. [1]. Something
similar to what Mark is usually doing on the linux-next ML, or what I
did here.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected]
> Apologies for the omission.
No problem, it happens fairly regularly ;)
Cheers,
Matt
--
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.
