Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the vfs tree

[Dan Williams]

[ add Ingo ]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:10 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   lib/iov_iter.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   e33ea6e5ba6a ("x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess speculation")
> >
> > from the vfs tree and commit:
> >
> >   0a78de3d4b7b ("x86, powerpc: Rename memcpy_mcsafe() to copy_mc_to_{user, kernel}()")
> >
> > from the nvdimm tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just used the latter, but I suspect that more work is
> > needed) 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.
>
> I messed up, this shouldn't be present in -next, yet. Will remove.

Oh, wait, this isn't from a new push this was back from the v5.9 merge
attempt and is only just now causing conflicts. Ingo, how does tip.git
usually coordinate with vfs.git? Should I rebase on vfs / work the
copy_mc_to_{user,kernel} patches through Al, or?