Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm64 tree with the mm-unstable tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Anshuman,

On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 08:55:54 +0530 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 04/12/25 7:30 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:21:44 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:  
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the arm64 tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >>   arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >>   2b9cdb805fcd ("mm: make INVALID_PHYS_ADDR a generic macro")
> >>
> >> from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
> >>
> >>   bfc184cb1ba7 ("arm64/mm: Allow __create_pgd_mapping() to propagate pgtable_alloc() errors")
> >>
> >> from the arm64 tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (the latter moved the INVALID_PHYS_ADDR define so I removed
> >> it from its new place, and there was no conflict left) 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.  
> > 
> > This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.  
> 
> Should this be rebased against Linus's tree in mm-stable first before the pull request ?

No, it should just be mentioned to Linus in he PR.  He would figure it
out anyway.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgpjXidnigc6T.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature