Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:11:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 164477c2331b ("x86/mm: Clarify hardware vs. software "error_code"")
>> (and others from that series)
>>
>> from the tip tree and commits:
>>
>> 768fd9c69bb5 ("signal/x86: Remove pkey parameter from bad_area_nosemaphore")
>> 25c102d803ea ("signal/x86: Remove pkey parameter from mm_fault_error")
>>
>> from the userns tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I think - 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. You may also want to consider
>> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
>> particularly complex conflicts.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>>
>> diff --cc arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> index c2e3e5127ebc,8d77700a7883..000000000000
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> +/* Handle faults in the user portion of the address space */
>> +static inline
>> +void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
>> + unsigned long hw_error_code,
>> + unsigned long address)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long sw_error_code;
>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>> + struct task_struct *tsk;
>> + struct mm_struct *mm;
>> + vm_fault_t fault, major = 0;
>> + unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY | FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE;
>> + u32 pkey;
>
> I missed removing the above line.
Yes. At first glance with the above change it looks like you got it.
Eric
