On Tue, 26 May 2020 08:13:09 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 03:19:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > hm. Applying linux-next to this series generates a lot of rejects against > > powerpc: > > > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm 493 May 25 15:06 arch/powerpc/kernel/kgdb.c.rej > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm 6461 May 25 15:06 arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c.rej > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm 447 May 25 15:06 arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c.rej > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm 623 May 25 15:06 arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c.rej > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 akpm akpm 1408 May 25 15:06 arch/riscv/kernel/patch.c.rej > > > > the arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c ones aren't very trivial. > > > > It's -rc7. Perhaps we should park all this until 5.8-rc1? > > As this is a pre-condition for the set_fs removal I'd really like to > get the actual changes in. All these conflicts seem to be about the > last three cleanup patches just doing renaming, so can we just skip > those three for now? Then we can do the rename right after 5.8-rc1 > when we have the least chances for conflicts. That seems to have worked. "[PATCH 23/23] maccess: return -ERANGE when copy_from_kernel_nofault_allowed fails" needed a bit of massaging to both the patch and to the patch title.
