[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200120124051.2fdcfc61@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:40:51 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree
Hi Jens,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:34:59 -0700 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 12/19/19 6:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/open.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 0a51692d49ec ("open: introduce openat2(2) syscall")
> >
> > from the vfs tree and commit:
> >
> > 252270311374 ("fs: make build_open_flags() available internally")
> >
> > from the block tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see at end, plus the merge fix patch 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.
>
> Thanks Stephen, I may just pull in the vfs tree to avoid this conflict.
I looks like Al has rewritten the branch you merged from his tree and
caused various conflicts in my merge of the block tree today. I used
Al's new versions of the conflicting files.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists