[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210622113835.58589c3d@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 11:38:35 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree
Hi Steven,
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:12:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:
>
> Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
> include/linux/uio.h
> lib/iov_iter.c
>
> between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
> of the commits from the gfs2 tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) 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.
I got more conflicts today.
Can we please get that (old, buggy) version of this topic branch
removed from the gfs2 tree (and replaced with a merge of the new less
buggy version (assuming Al will guarantee that it won't change again).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists