linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/init_64.c between commit: d9f6e12fb0b7 ("x86: Fix various typos in comments") from the tip tree and commit: 68f7bf6e7e98 ("x86/vmemmap: drop handling of 4K unaligned vmemmap range") from the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 07:56:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > mm/gup.c > > between commit: > > 2a4a06da8a4b ("mm/gup: Provide gup_get_pte() more generic") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: mm/gup.c between commit: 2a4a06da8a4b ("mm/gup: Provide gup_get_pte() more generic") from the tip tree and commit: 1eb2fe862a51 ("mm/gup: combine put_compound_head() and unpin_user_page()") from the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Nov 27 2020 at 13:54, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> I fixed it up (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.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 06:39:24PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/kernel.h > > between commit: > > 74d862b682f5 ("sched: Make migrate_disable/enable() independent of RT") > > from the tip

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: mm/highmem.c between commits: 298fa1ad5571 ("highmem: Provide generic variant of kmap_atomic*") 5fbda3ecd14a ("sched: highmem: Store local kmaps in task struct") from the tip tree and commit: 72d22a0d0e86

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: include/linux/kernel.h between commit: 74d862b682f5 ("sched: Make migrate_disable/enable() independent of RT") from the tip tree and commit: 761ace49e56f ("kernel.h: Split out mathematical helpers") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: include/linux/mm.h between commit: 95bb7c42ac8a ("mm: Add 'mprotect' hook to struct vm_operations_struct") from the tip tree and commit: 6dd8e5dab7c1 ("mremap: don't allow MREMAP_DONTUNMAP on special_mappings

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: arch/arc/Kconfig between commit: 39cac191ff37 ("arc/mm/highmem: Use generic kmap atomic implementation") from the tip tree and commit: b41c56d2a9e6 ("arc: use FLATMEM with freeing of unused memory map instead

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: include/linux/sched.h between commit: d741bf41d7c7 ("kprobes: Remove kretprobe hash") from the tip tree and commit: faf4ffbfd1c5 ("fs/buffer.c: add debug print for __getblk_gfp() stall problem") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: lib/cpumask.c between commit: 1abdfe706a57 ("lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs") from the tip tree and commit: 6f7ee3fd63c9 ("lib: optimize cpumask_local_spread()") from the akpm-current

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, On Mon, 25 May 2020 21:04:43 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > between commit: > > 83ce56f712af ("x86/mm: Refactor cond_ibpb() to support other use cases") > > from the tip tree and

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/include/asm/efi.h between commit: 9b47c5275614 ("efi/libstub: Add definitions for console input and events") from the tip tree and patch: "mm: reorder includes after introduction of linux/pgtable.h"

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: mm/swap.c between commit: b01b2141 ("mm/swap: Use local_lock for protection") from the tip tree and commit: 48c1ce8726a7 ("mm: fold and remove lru_cache_add_anon() and lru_cache_add_file()") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: include/linux/sched.h between commits: 5567d11c21a1 ("x86/mce: Send #MC singal from task work") from the tip tree and commit: e87f27165be1 ("fs/buffer.c: add debug print for __getblk_gfp() stall problem")

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: fs/squashfs/decompressor_multi_percpu.c between commit: fd56200a16c7 ("squashfs: Make use of local lock in multi_cpu decompressor") from the tip tree and commit: 5697b27554f3

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 21:04 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > > between commit: > > 83ce56f712af ("x86/mm: Refactor cond_ibpb() to support other use cases") > > from the tip tree and

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/tlb.c between commit: 83ce56f712af ("x86/mm: Refactor cond_ibpb() to support other use cases") from the tip tree and commit: 36c8e34d03a1 ("x86/mm: remove vmalloc faulting") from the akpm-current

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: kernel/kprobes.c between commit: 4fdd88877e52 ("kprobes: Lock kprobe_mutex while showing kprobe_blacklist") from the tip tree and commit: 71294f4f8167 ("kernel/kprobes.c: convert to use DEFINE_SEQ_ATTRIBUTE

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: lib/debugobjects.c between commit: d5f34153e526 ("debugobjects: Move printk out of db->lock critical sections") from the tip tree and commit: 8b6b497dfb11 ("lib/debugobjects.c: move printk out of db lock

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: mm/vmalloc.c between commit: bade3b4bdcdb ("mm/vmalloc.c: refactor __vunmap() to avoid duplicated call to find_vm_area()") from the tip tree and commit: 868b104d7379 ("mm/vmalloc: Add flag for freeing of

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: include/linux/sched.h between commit: 15917dc02841 ("sched: Remove stale PF_MUTEX_TESTER bit") from the tip tree and commit: ca299cb98649 ("mm/cma: add PF flag to force non cma alloc") from the akpm-current

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:32:22 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > fs/proc/kcore.c > include/linux/kcore.h > > between commit: > > 6855dc41b246 ("x86: Add entry trampolines to kcore") > > from the tip tree and commits:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 14:32:22 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > fs/proc/kcore.c > include/linux/kcore.h > > between commit: > > 6855dc41b246 ("x86: Add entry trampolines to kcore") > > from the tip tree and commits:

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: fs/proc/kcore.c include/linux/kcore.h between commit: 6855dc41b246 ("x86: Add entry trampolines to kcore") from the tip tree and commits: 4eb27c275abf ("fs/proc/kcore.c: use __pa_symbol() for KCORE_TEXT

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: fs/proc/kcore.c include/linux/kcore.h between commit: 6855dc41b246 ("x86: Add entry trampolines to kcore") from the tip tree and commits: 4eb27c275abf ("fs/proc/kcore.c: use __pa_symbol() for KCORE_TEXT

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: fs/ocfs2/filecheck.c between commit: e24e960c7fe2 ("sched/wait, fs/ocfs2: Convert wait_on_atomic_t() usage to the new wait_var_event() API") from the tip tree and commit: 5a5b76d17dc4 ("ocfs2: add kobject

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: fs/ocfs2/filecheck.c between commit: e24e960c7fe2 ("sched/wait, fs/ocfs2: Convert wait_on_atomic_t() usage to the new wait_var_event() API") from the tip tree and commit: 5a5b76d17dc4 ("ocfs2: add kobject

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: kernel/fork.c between commit: 5e28fd0b5fdb ("arch: Allow arch_dup_mmap() to fail") from the tip tree and commit: 120bd8608675 ("include/linux/sched/mm.h: uninline mmdrop_async(), etc") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: kernel/fork.c between commit: 5e28fd0b5fdb ("arch: Allow arch_dup_mmap() to fail") from the tip tree and commit: 120bd8608675 ("include/linux/sched/mm.h: uninline mmdrop_async(), etc") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: kernel/softirq.c between commit: f71b74bca637 ("irq/softirqs: Use lockdep to assert IRQs are disabled/enabled") from the tip tree and commit: 275f9389fa4e ("kmemcheck: rip it out") from the akpm-current

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: kernel/softirq.c between commit: f71b74bca637 ("irq/softirqs: Use lockdep to assert IRQs are disabled/enabled") from the tip tree and commit: 275f9389fa4e ("kmemcheck: rip it out") from the akpm-current

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/kasan_init_64.c between commit: 12a8cc7fcf54 ("x86/kasan: Use the same shadow offset for 4- and 5-level paging") from the tip tree and commit: 3af83426c380 ("x86/kasan: add and use

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/mm/kasan_init_64.c between commit: 12a8cc7fcf54 ("x86/kasan: Use the same shadow offset for 4- and 5-level paging") from the tip tree and commit: 3af83426c380 ("x86/kasan: add and use

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On 08/22/2017 08:57 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, Hi, > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > init/main.c > > between commit: > > caba4cbbd27d ("debugobjects: Make kmemleak ignore debug objects") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On 08/22/2017 08:57 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, Hi, > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > init/main.c > > between commit: > > caba4cbbd27d ("debugobjects: Make kmemleak ignore debug objects") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: init/main.c between commit: caba4cbbd27d ("debugobjects: Make kmemleak ignore debug objects") from the tip tree and commit: 50a7dc046b58 ("mm, page_ext: move page_ext_init() after page_alloc_init_late()")

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: init/main.c between commit: caba4cbbd27d ("debugobjects: Make kmemleak ignore debug objects") from the tip tree and commit: 50a7dc046b58 ("mm, page_ext: move page_ext_init() after page_alloc_init_late()")

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 09:57:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:38:39PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > memory-barrier.txt always scares me. I have read it for a while > > and IIUC, it seems semantic of spin_unlock(_pte) would be > > enough without some memory-barrier

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 09:57:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:38:39PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > memory-barrier.txt always scares me. I have read it for a while > > and IIUC, it seems semantic of spin_unlock(_pte) would be > > enough without some memory-barrier

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:07:19AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: So I'm not entirely clear about this yet. How about: CPU0CPU1 tlb_gather_mmu()

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:07:19AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: So I'm not entirely clear about this yet. How about: CPU0CPU1 tlb_gather_mmu()

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:38:39PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > memory-barrier.txt always scares me. I have read it for a while > and IIUC, it seems semantic of spin_unlock(_pte) would be > enough without some memory-barrier inside mm_tlb_flush_nested. Indeed, see the email I just send. Its both

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:38:39PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > memory-barrier.txt always scares me. I have read it for a while > and IIUC, it seems semantic of spin_unlock(_pte) would be > enough without some memory-barrier inside mm_tlb_flush_nested. Indeed, see the email I just send. Its both

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:07:19AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: > >> So I'm not entirely clear about this yet. > >> > >> How about: > >> > >> > >>CPU0CPU1 > >> > >>tlb_gather_mmu() > >> > >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:07:19AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: > >> So I'm not entirely clear about this yet. > >> > >> How about: > >> > >> > >>CPU0CPU1 > >> > >>tlb_gather_mmu() > >> > >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:09:14PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > @@ -446,9 +450,7 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb, >* >*/ > bool force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm); > - > arch_tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, start, end, force); > - dec_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm);

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:09:14PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > @@ -446,9 +450,7 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb, >* >*/ > bool force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm); > - > arch_tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, start, end, force); > - dec_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm);

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Nadav, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:07:19AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: < snip > > For some reason (I would assume intentional), all the examples here first > “do not modify” the PTE, and then modify it - which is not an “interesting” > case. However, based on what I understand on the memory

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Nadav, On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:07:19AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: < snip > > For some reason (I would assume intentional), all the examples here first > “do not modify” the PTE, and then modify it - which is not an “interesting” > case. However, based on what I understand on the memory

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:07:19AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: < snip > > Minchan, as for the solution you proposed, it seems to open again a race, > since the “pending” indication is removed before the actual TLB flush is > performed. Oops, you're right!

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:07:19AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: < snip > > Minchan, as for the solution you proposed, it seems to open again a race, > since the “pending” indication is removed before the actual TLB flush is > performed. Oops, you're right!

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Minchan Kim wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 02:50:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: however mm_tlb_flush_nested() is a mystery, it appears to care about anything inside the range. For now rely on it

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Minchan Kim wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 02:50:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: however mm_tlb_flush_nested() is a mystery, it appears to care about anything inside the range. For now rely on it doing at least _a_ PTL

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 02:50:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: > > > however mm_tlb_flush_nested() is a mystery, it appears to care about > > > anything inside the range. For now rely on it doing at least _a_ PTL > > > lock instead of

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 02:50:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: > > > however mm_tlb_flush_nested() is a mystery, it appears to care about > > > anything inside the range. For now rely on it doing at least _a_ PTL > > > lock instead of

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Peter, On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:04:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ok, so I have the below to still go on-top. > > Ideally someone would clarify the situation around > mm_tlb_flush_nested(), because ideally we'd remove the > smp_mb__after_atomic() and go back to relying on PTL alone.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Peter, On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:04:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ok, so I have the below to still go on-top. > > Ideally someone would clarify the situation around > mm_tlb_flush_nested(), because ideally we'd remove the > smp_mb__after_atomic() and go back to relying on PTL alone.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: > > however mm_tlb_flush_nested() is a mystery, it appears to care about > > anything inside the range. For now rely on it doing at least _a_ PTL > > lock instead of taking _the_ PTL lock. > > It does not care about “anything” inside

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +, Nadav Amit wrote: > > however mm_tlb_flush_nested() is a mystery, it appears to care about > > anything inside the range. For now rely on it doing at least _a_ PTL > > lock instead of taking _the_ PTL lock. > > It does not care about “anything” inside

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ok, so I have the below to still go on-top. > > Ideally someone would clarify the situation around > mm_tlb_flush_nested(), because ideally we'd remove the > smp_mb__after_atomic() and go back to relying on PTL alone. > > This also removes the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ok, so I have the below to still go on-top. > > Ideally someone would clarify the situation around > mm_tlb_flush_nested(), because ideally we'd remove the > smp_mb__after_atomic() and go back to relying on PTL alone. > > This also removes the pointless

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Ok, so I have the below to still go on-top. Ideally someone would clarify the situation around mm_tlb_flush_nested(), because ideally we'd remove the smp_mb__after_atomic() and go back to relying on PTL alone. This also removes the pointless smp_mb__before_atomic() --- Subject: mm: Fix

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Ok, so I have the below to still go on-top. Ideally someone would clarify the situation around mm_tlb_flush_nested(), because ideally we'd remove the smp_mb__after_atomic() and go back to relying on PTL alone. This also removes the pointless smp_mb__before_atomic() --- Subject: mm: Fix

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Ingo, On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:44:25 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > I've done a minimal conflict resolution merge locally. Peter, could you > > > please >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Ingo, On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:44:25 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > I've done a minimal conflict resolution merge locally. Peter, could you > > > please > > > double check my resolution, in: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

* Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I've done a minimal conflict resolution merge locally. Peter, could you > > please > > double check my resolution, in: > > > > 040cca3ab2f6: Merge branch 'linus' into

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

* Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I've done a minimal conflict resolution merge locally. Peter, could you > > please > > double check my resolution, in: > > > > 040cca3ab2f6: Merge branch 'linus' into locking/core, to resolve

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > I've done a minimal conflict resolution merge locally. Peter, could you > please > double check my resolution, in: > > 040cca3ab2f6: Merge branch 'linus' into locking/core, to resolve conflicts That merge is a bit wonky, but not

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 01:56:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > I've done a minimal conflict resolution merge locally. Peter, could you > please > double check my resolution, in: > > 040cca3ab2f6: Merge branch 'linus' into locking/core, to resolve conflicts That merge is a bit wonky, but not

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

* Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:34:49 +0200 Peter Zijlstra > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:53:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

* Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:34:49 +0200 Peter Zijlstra > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:53:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > > > > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Peter, On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:34:49 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:53:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > > > include/linux/mm_types.h > > mm/huge_memory.c >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Peter, On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:34:49 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:53:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > > > include/linux/mm_types.h > > mm/huge_memory.c > > > > between

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:34:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:53:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > > > include/linux/mm_types.h > > mm/huge_memory.c > > > > between

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:34:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:53:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > > > include/linux/mm_types.h > > mm/huge_memory.c > > > > between

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:53:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > include/linux/mm_types.h > mm/huge_memory.c > > between commit: > > 8b1b436dd1cc ("mm, locking: Rework

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 05:53:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > include/linux/mm_types.h > mm/huge_memory.c > > between commit: > > 8b1b436dd1cc ("mm, locking: Rework

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: include/linux/mm_types.h mm/huge_memory.c between commit: 8b1b436dd1cc ("mm, locking: Rework {set,clear,mm}_tlb_flush_pending()") from the tip tree and commits: 16af97dc5a89 ("mm: migrate: prevent racy access

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: include/linux/mm_types.h mm/huge_memory.c between commit: 8b1b436dd1cc ("mm, locking: Rework {set,clear,mm}_tlb_flush_pending()") from the tip tree and commits: 16af97dc5a89 ("mm: migrate: prevent racy access

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Apr 12 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 12.4.2017 8:46, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: >> >> drivers/block/nbd.c >> drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c >> net/core/dev.c >> net/core/sock.c >> >> between

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On Wed, Apr 12 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 12.4.2017 8:46, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: >> >> drivers/block/nbd.c >> drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c >> net/core/dev.c >> net/core/sock.c >> >> between

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On 12.4.2017 8:46, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > drivers/block/nbd.c > drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c > net/core/dev.c > net/core/sock.c > > between commit: > > 717a94b5fc70 ("sched/core: Remove 'task'

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

On 12.4.2017 8:46, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > drivers/block/nbd.c > drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c > net/core/dev.c > net/core/sock.c > > between commit: > > 717a94b5fc70 ("sched/core: Remove 'task'

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: drivers/block/nbd.c drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c net/core/dev.c net/core/sock.c between commit: 717a94b5fc70 ("sched/core: Remove 'task' parameter and rename tsk_restore_flags() to current_restore_flags()")

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: drivers/block/nbd.c drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c net/core/dev.c net/core/sock.c between commit: 717a94b5fc70 ("sched/core: Remove 'task' parameter and rename tsk_restore_flags() to current_restore_flags()")

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h arch/x86/include/asm/atomic64_64.h between commits: a9ebf306f52c ("locking/atomic: Introduce atomic_try_cmpxchg()") e6790e4b5d5e ("locking/atomic/x86: Use atomic_try_cmpxchg()")

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h arch/x86/include/asm/atomic64_64.h between commits: a9ebf306f52c ("locking/atomic: Introduce atomic_try_cmpxchg()") e6790e4b5d5e ("locking/atomic/x86: Use atomic_try_cmpxchg()")

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild arch/m32r/include/asm/Kbuild arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between commit: b672592f0221 ("sched/cputime: Remove generic asm headers") from the tip

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: arch/cris/include/asm/Kbuild arch/m32r/include/asm/Kbuild arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild arch/score/include/asm/Kbuild between commit: b672592f0221 ("sched/cputime: Remove generic asm headers") from the tip

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: mm/memcontrol.c between commit: 308167fcb330 ("mm/memcg: Convert to hotplug state machine") from the tip tree and commit: 2558c318449d ("mm: memcontrol: use special workqueue for creating per-memcg

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: mm/memcontrol.c between commit: 308167fcb330 ("mm/memcg: Convert to hotplug state machine") from the tip tree and commit: 2558c318449d ("mm: memcontrol: use special workqueue for creating per-memcg

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h between commit: 609c19a385c8 ("x86/ptrace: Stop setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace code") from the tip tree and commit: 58f9594bd42f ("signal: consolidate

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h between commit: 609c19a385c8 ("x86/ptrace: Stop setting TS_COMPAT in ptrace code") from the tip tree and commit: 58f9594bd42f ("signal: consolidate

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi, On 06/15/2016 07:23 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: ipc/sem.c between commit: 33ac279677dc ("locking/barriers: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep()") from the tip tree and commit: a1c58ea067cb

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi, On 06/15/2016 07:23 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: ipc/sem.c between commit: 33ac279677dc ("locking/barriers: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep()") from the tip tree and commit: a1c58ea067cb

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: ipc/sem.c between commit: 33ac279677dc ("locking/barriers: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep()") from the tip tree and commit: a1c58ea067cb ("ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race") from the

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: ipc/sem.c between commit: 33ac279677dc ("locking/barriers: Introduce smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep()") from the tip tree and commit: a1c58ea067cb ("ipc/sem.c: Fix complex_count vs. simple op race") from the

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

* Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/efi.h > > between commit: > > 2c23b73c2d02 ("Ard Biesheuvel ") > > from the tip tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

* Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/efi.h > > between commit: > > 2c23b73c2d02 ("Ard Biesheuvel ") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > 9f2c36a7b097 ("include/linux/efi.h: redefine type,

  1   2   >