[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180605005904.GY10363@dastard>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:59:04 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:34:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the xfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/gfs2/bmap.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 628e366df11c ("gfs2: Iomap cleanups and improvements")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 7ee66c03e40a ("iomap: move IOMAP_F_BOUNDARY to gfs2")
>
> from the xfs 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.
We should have seen this before the gfs2 tree was merged into Linus'
tree. Does that mean the gfs2 tree is not being pulled into the
linux-next tree?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists