linux-next: duplicate patch in the mm-nonmm-stable tree

linux-next: duplicate patch in the mm-nonmm-stable tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 321 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
(but the same patch):

  022b973a3de9 ("smp: make __smp_processor_id() 0-argument macro")

This is commit

  b57b4126dd3b ("smp: Make __smp_processor_id() 0-argument macro")

in Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: duplicate patch in the mm-nonmm-stable tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 380 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
(but the same patch):

  14c7095a68e0 ("LoongArch/tlb: fix "error: parameter 'ptep' set but not used" due to __tlb_remove_tlb_entry()")

This is commit

  7ab22b5c2af5 ("LoongArch: Fix a build error due to __tlb_remove_tlb_entry()")

in Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the mm-nonmm-stable tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:45:29 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 15:12:11 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:08:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
> > > (but the same patch):
> > > 
> > >   bf470202dd9f ("fs: gracefully handle ->get_block not mapping bh in __mpage_writepage")  
> > 
> > CommitDate: Thu Feb 2 22:50:07 2023 -0800
> > 
> > > This is commit
> > > 
> > >   7010839ccfd4 ("fs: gracefully handle ->get_block not mapping bh in __mpage_writepage")
> > > 
> > > in Linus' tree.  
> > 
> > CommitDate: Thu Jan 26 16:46:35 2023 +0100
> > 
> > 
> > So I'm wondering why this came to light on Feb 20?
> 
> Sorry about that, but I wouldn't worry about it too much as it doesn't
> seem to be causing a conflict.
> 
> The latter commit was in the ext3 tree before being merged by Linus and
> I guess I missed it initially because sometimes the check for
> duplicates in the mm tree produces a longish list when the mm tree is
> updated during the day and the mm-hotfixes tree has already been merged
> (and gets rebased as part of the mm tree rebase).
> 
> It would have been put in the list of things to ignore until it turned
> up in Linus's tree today (which is an earlier and check and has a
> separate ignore list).
> 

I see, thanks.

Can you please remind me at what times you pull the trees?  I believe
it's more than once per day?  I'll look at redoing my schedule so we
don't overlap.

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the mm-nonmm-stable tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 15:12:11 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:08:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
> > (but the same patch):
> > 
> >   bf470202dd9f ("fs: gracefully handle ->get_block not mapping bh in __mpage_writepage")  
> 
> CommitDate: Thu Feb 2 22:50:07 2023 -0800
> 
> > This is commit
> > 
> >   7010839ccfd4 ("fs: gracefully handle ->get_block not mapping bh in __mpage_writepage")
> > 
> > in Linus' tree.  
> 
> CommitDate: Thu Jan 26 16:46:35 2023 +0100
> 
> 
> So I'm wondering why this came to light on Feb 20?

Sorry about that, but I wouldn't worry about it too much as it doesn't
seem to be causing a conflict.

The latter commit was in the ext3 tree before being merged by Linus and
I guess I missed it initially because sometimes the check for
duplicates in the mm tree produces a longish list when the mm tree is
updated during the day and the mm-hotfixes tree has already been merged
(and gets rebased as part of the mm tree rebase).

It would have been put in the list of things to ignore until it turned
up in Linus's tree today (which is an earlier and check and has a
separate ignore list).

I'll try to be more careful.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the mm-nonmm-stable tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:08:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
> (but the same patch):
> 
>   bf470202dd9f ("fs: gracefully handle ->get_block not mapping bh in __mpage_writepage")

CommitDate: Thu Feb 2 22:50:07 2023 -0800

> This is commit
> 
>   7010839ccfd4 ("fs: gracefully handle ->get_block not mapping bh in __mpage_writepage")
> 
> in Linus' tree.

CommitDate: Thu Jan 26 16:46:35 2023 +0100


So I'm wondering why this came to light on Feb 20?

Thanks.

linux-next: duplicate patch in the mm-nonmm-stable tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 365 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
(but the same patch):

  bf470202dd9f ("fs: gracefully handle ->get_block not mapping bh in __mpage_writepage")

This is commit

  7010839ccfd4 ("fs: gracefully handle ->get_block not mapping bh in __mpage_writepage")

in Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]