Re: linux-next: manual merge of the fs-next tree with the mm tree

[Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>]

On 09/17, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2026 15:48:10 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   08071592211dc ("f2fs: stop using PG_private")
> >   32e05e39cb443 ("f2fs: convert the ->private flag helpers to folio-only")
> > 
> > from the mm tree and commit:
> > 
> >   60105162524e9 ("f2fs: stop using PG_private")
> > 
> > from the fs-next tree.
> 
> It's risky to cherrypick a couple of patches from a 16-patch series and
> carry them in a separate tree.  It'll all end up OK in the end, but who
> verifies that these two are OK as standalone things?

I applied the first patch only which looked a standalone. Though, let me
drop it and see how it'll give the conflicts with other f2fs patches.

> 
> Also, as the changelogs say,
> 
> "It prepares for a future commit that removes PG_private"
> 
> and that removal is in mm.git as [16/16], so I'll need to retain these
> patches so mm.git compiles.
> 
> It would have been preferable for the f2fs maintainers to have simply
> sent along their acks so all this work can remain in the same place.
> 
> I'll continue to hold the f2fs patches in mm.git.  Which means they
> might hit mainline before the f2fs tree is merged.  Or after. 
> Hopefully Linus's git will figure it out.
>