[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180227093615.rjdlert2bd5smurb@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:36:15 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the ext3
tree
Hi Stephen!
On Tue 27-02-18 14:11:53, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in:
>
> fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
> fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.h
> fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> fs/notify/inotify/inotify_fsnotify.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 1e301852d657 ("fanotify: Avoid lost events due to ENOMEM for unlimited queues")
> b900420e4109 ("fsnotify: Let userspace know about lost events due to ENOMEM")
>
> from the ext3 tree and commit:
>
> d519ceef2ad6 ("fs: fsnotify: account fsnotify metadata to kmemcg")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below - I simplified the obvious resolution a bit) 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.
Thanks for the conflict resolution. It looks good!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists