linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the mm-stable tree

Stephen Rothwell posted 1 patch 2 months, 2 weeks ago
linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the mm-stable tree
Posted by Stephen Rothwell 2 months, 2 weeks ago
Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:

  mm/secretmem.c

between commit:

  b6c46600bfb2 ("mm: fix some typos in mm module")

from the mm-stable tree and commit:

  1011f385f492 ("secretmem: convert memfd_secret() to FD_ADD()")

from the vfs-brauner tree.

I fixed it up (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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc mm/secretmem.c
index 37f6d1097853,f0ef4e198884..000000000000
--- a/mm/secretmem.c
+++ b/mm/secretmem.c
@@@ -224,10 -224,7 +224,7 @@@ err_free_inode
  
  SYSCALL_DEFINE1(memfd_secret, unsigned int, flags)
  {
- 	struct file *file;
- 	int fd, err;
- 
 -	/* make sure local flags do not confict with global fcntl.h */
 +	/* make sure local flags do not conflict with global fcntl.h */
  	BUILD_BUG_ON(SECRETMEM_FLAGS_MASK & O_CLOEXEC);
  
  	if (!secretmem_enable || !can_set_direct_map())
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the mm-stable tree
Posted by Stephen Rothwell 2 months ago
Hi all,

On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 12:29:34 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/secretmem.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b6c46600bfb2 ("mm: fix some typos in mm module")
> 
> from the mm-stable tree and commit:
> 
>   1011f385f492 ("secretmem: convert memfd_secret() to FD_ADD()")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (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.
> 
> 
> diff --cc mm/secretmem.c
> index 37f6d1097853,f0ef4e198884..000000000000
> --- a/mm/secretmem.c
> +++ b/mm/secretmem.c
> @@@ -224,10 -224,7 +224,7 @@@ err_free_inode
>   
>   SYSCALL_DEFINE1(memfd_secret, unsigned int, flags)
>   {
> - 	struct file *file;
> - 	int fd, err;
> - 
>  -	/* make sure local flags do not confict with global fcntl.h */
>  +	/* make sure local flags do not conflict with global fcntl.h */
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(SECRETMEM_FLAGS_MASK & O_CLOEXEC);
>   
>   	if (!secretmem_enable || !can_set_direct_map())

This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell