Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the bpf-next tree

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 17:29:43 -0800 Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 07:21:56AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 20:20:05 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in:
> > > 
> > >   include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > >   mm/memcontrol.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   bcfe06bf2622 ("mm: memcontrol: Use helpers to read page's memcg data")
> > > 
> > > from the bpf-next tree and commits:
> > > 
> > >   6771a349b8c3 ("mm/memcg: remove incorrect comment")
> > >   c3970fcb1f21 ("mm: move lruvec stats update functions to vmstat.h")
> > > 
> > > from the akpm-current tree.
> > > 
> ...
> > 
> > Just a reminder that this conflict still exists.  Commit bcfe06bf2622
> > is now in the net-next tree.
> 
> Thanks, Stephen!
> 
> I wonder if it's better to update these 2 commits in the mm tree to avoid
> conflicts?
> 
> Basically split your fix into two and merge it into mm commits.
> The last chunk in the patch should be merged into "mm/memcg: remove incorrect comment".
> And the rest into "mm: move lruvec stats update functions to vmstat.h".
> 
> Andrew, what do you think?

I have "mm/memcg: remove incorrect comment" and "mm: move lruvec stats
update functions to vmstat.h" staged against Linus's tree and plan to
send them to him later today.  So I trust the BPF tree maintainers will
be able to resolve these minor things when those patches turn up in
mainline.