On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 7:37 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:21:41 -0800 Arjun Roy <arjunroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I remain a bit concerned regarding the merge process for this specific > > patch (0003, the net/ipv4/tcp.c change) since I have other in-flight > > changes for TCP receive zerocopy that I'd like to upstream for > > net-next - and would like to avoid weird merge issues. > > > > So perhaps the following could work: > > > > 1. Andrew, perhaps we could remove this particular patch (0003, the > > net/ipv4/tcp.c change) from mm-next; that way we merge > > vm_insert_pages() but not the call-site within TCP, for now. > > 2. net-next will eventually pick vm_insert_pages() up. > > 3. I can modify the zerocopy code to use it at that point? > > > > Else I'm concerned a complicated merge situation may result. > > > > What do you all think? > > We could do that. > > For now, I'll stage the entire patch series after linux-next and shall > wait and see whether things which appear in linux-next cause serious > merge issues to occur. Sound OK? Sounds good for now; the conflict itself would be easy enough to fix when it does crop up. Thanks, -Arjun
