[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211102104244.GH20319@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:42:44 +0100
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:53:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/btrfs/lzo.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ccaa66c8dd27 ("Revert "btrfs: compression: drop kmap/kunmap from lzo"")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> d4088803f511 ("btrfs: subpage: make lzo_compress_pages() compatible")
>
> from the btrfs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (this may be completely wrong or incomplete :-( - 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.
Thanks, it's a bit different that I did as a proposed conflict
resulution and Linus resolved it in a yet another way. I'll refresh my
for-next branch today to minimize the conflict surface.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists