On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 1:31 PM Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:07:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 12:39:35 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the modules tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > kernel/module/main.c
> > >
> > > between commits:
> > >
> > > 7f014cdda4cb ("lib: code tagging module support")
> > > 5ab9b0c7ea5c ("lib: prevent module unloading if memory is not freed")
> > >
> > > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commits:
> > >
> > > 0746f9982603 ("module: make module_memory_{alloc,free} more self-contained")
> > > 18da532eefc8 ("mm/execmem, arch: convert remaining overrides of module_alloc to execmem")
> > >
> > > from the modules 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.
> >
> > That's a shame. I don't see much that we can do to reduce the damage here.
>
> I can rebase it on mm-unstable and this can go via the mm tree.
Conflict resolution looks fine to me. I'll run relevant tests on
linux-next within 2 hours.
>
> > Suren&Kent, please review (and preferably) test Stephen's handiwork in
> > linux-next?
> >
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
