[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gHQBwvC9bGjFNvVWsZe2XW=52eT7QCcP1dduxaY7Gfbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 10:16:08 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
David Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the xfs tree
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/dax/super.c
>
> between commits:
>
> ba23cba9b3bd ("fs: allow per-device dax status checking for filesystems")
> 80660f20252d ("dax: change bdev_dax_supported() to support boolean returns")
>
> from the xfs tree and commit:
>
> e76384884344 ("mm: introduce MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX and CONFIG_DEV_PAGEMAP_OPS")
>
> from the nvdimm 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.
Resolution looks good to me Stephen. Thanks for fixing this up, I'll
let Linus know in the libnvdimm pull request.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists