[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160928062501.GA19141@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:25:01 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Prakash Surya <surya1@...l.gov>,
"John L. Hammond" <john.hammond@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the vfs-miklos
tree
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 03:00:22PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/file.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 302d50e7203e ("switch generic_file_splice_read() to use of ->read_iter()")
>
> from the vfs-miklos tree and commits:
>
> 5b8a39c53a16 ("staging: lustre: llite: Replace write mutex with range lock")
> ee5532436a7d ("staging: lustre: lov: remove LL_IOC_RECREATE_{FID, OBJ}")
>
> from the staging tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.
Looks good to me, one of these days we will get lustre out of staging to
make this easier...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists