Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the tip tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 16:49:37 +1000

Hi all,

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

  arch/x86/kernel/process.c

between commit:

  3a24a60854d2 ("x86/32: Remove lazy GS macros")

from the tip tree and commit:

  5bd2e97c868a ("fork: Generalize PF_IO_WORKER handling")

from the userns 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 arch/x86/kernel/process.c
index 4037aaaf0260,d20eaad52a85..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@@ -193,10 -193,14 +195,10 @@@ int copy_thread(struct task_struct *p, 
  	if (sp)
  		childregs->sp = sp;
  
- 	if (unlikely(p->flags & PF_IO_WORKER)) {
 -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
 -	task_user_gs(p) = get_user_gs(current_pt_regs());
 -#endif
 -
+ 	if (unlikely(args->fn)) {
  		/*
- 		 * An IO thread is a user space thread, but it doesn't
- 		 * return to ret_after_fork().
+ 		 * A user space thread, but it doesn't return to
+ 		 * ret_after_fork().
  		 *
  		 * In order to indicate that to tools like gdb,
  		 * we reset the stack and instruction pointers.