| Message ID | 20230215135734.4dffcd39@canb.auug.org.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | linux-next: manual merge of the mm tree with the bpf-next tree | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
Hi Stephen, the merge looks good to me. Thank you for doing this! Roman > On Feb 14, 2023, at 6:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got conflicts in: > > include/linux/memcontrol.h > mm/memcontrol.c > > between commit: > > b6c1a8af5b1e ("mm: memcontrol: add new kernel parameter cgroup.memory=nobpf") > > from the bpf-next tree and commit: > > 2006d382484e ("mm: memcontrol: rename memcg_kmem_enabled()") > > from the mm 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 include/linux/memcontrol.h > index e7310363f0cb,5567319027d1..000000000000 > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h > @@@ -1776,17 -1776,11 +1776,17 @@@ struct obj_cgroup *get_obj_cgroup_from_ > int obj_cgroup_charge(struct obj_cgroup *objcg, gfp_t gfp, size_t size); > void obj_cgroup_uncharge(struct obj_cgroup *objcg, size_t size); > > +extern struct static_key_false memcg_bpf_enabled_key; > +static inline bool memcg_bpf_enabled(void) > +{ > + return static_branch_likely(&memcg_bpf_enabled_key); > +} > + > - extern struct static_key_false memcg_kmem_enabled_key; > + extern struct static_key_false memcg_kmem_online_key; > > - static inline bool memcg_kmem_enabled(void) > + static inline bool memcg_kmem_online(void) > { > - return static_branch_likely(&memcg_kmem_enabled_key); > + return static_branch_likely(&memcg_kmem_online_key); > } > > static inline int memcg_kmem_charge_page(struct page *page, gfp_t gfp, > @@@ -1860,12 -1854,7 +1860,12 @@@ static inline struct obj_cgroup *get_ob > return NULL; > } > > +static inline bool memcg_bpf_enabled(void) > +{ > + return false; > +} > + > - static inline bool memcg_kmem_enabled(void) > + static inline bool memcg_kmem_online(void) > { > return false; > } > diff --cc mm/memcontrol.c > index 186a3a56dd7c,3e3cdb9bed95..000000000000 > --- a/mm/memcontrol.c > +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c > @@@ -348,11 -345,8 +348,11 @@@ static void memcg_reparent_objcgs(struc > * conditional to this static branch, we'll have to allow modules that does > * kmem_cache_alloc and the such to see this symbol as well > */ > - DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(memcg_kmem_enabled_key); > - EXPORT_SYMBOL(memcg_kmem_enabled_key); > + DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(memcg_kmem_online_key); > + EXPORT_SYMBOL(memcg_kmem_online_key); > + > +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(memcg_bpf_enabled_key); > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(memcg_bpf_enabled_key); > #endif > > /**
diff --cc include/linux/memcontrol.h index e7310363f0cb,5567319027d1..000000000000 --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h diff --cc mm/memcontrol.c index 186a3a56dd7c,3e3cdb9bed95..000000000000 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the mm tree got conflicts in: include/linux/memcontrol.h mm/memcontrol.c between commit: b6c1a8af5b1e ("mm: memcontrol: add new kernel parameter cgroup.memory=nobpf") from the bpf-next tree and commit: 2006d382484e ("mm: memcontrol: rename memcg_kmem_enabled()") from the mm 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.