On 8/31/22 23:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got a conflict in: > > block/blk-map.c > > between commit: > > e88811bc43b9 ("block: use on-stack page vec for <= UIO_FASTIOV") > > from the block tree and commit: > > 2e9a2aa23dad ("block, bio, fs: convert most filesystems to pin_user_pages_fast()") > > from the mm tree. > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as The fix up looks correct to me. > 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. > Of the 7 patches in my series [1], the first two are in mm, and provide some prerequisites. The remaining patches apply to block, bio, fs, and iov_iter, and that's where this merge conflict happened. Also, there's still some upcoming churn (more patchset revisions are coming), as reviews are still active and this one isn't perfected yet. So I see two obvious solutions. Either: a) Only do the first two patches for now, and leave them in Andrew's tree. After the next release, do the remaining 5 patches via the block tree, or b) Move the whole series to the block tree now, or c) something else? Andrew, Jens, any preference here? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220831041843.973026-1-jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA