[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cbeb57ae-5a87-9959-689f-d9d73baf6ee4@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 19:06:27 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
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 tomoyo tree with the block tree
On 11/23/21 5:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tomoyo tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/block/loop.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 3793b8e18186 ("block: rename GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN to GENHD_FL_NO_PART")
>
> from the block tree and commits:
>
> dfb2cc3b7f7e ("loop: don't hold lo_mutex during __loop_clr_fd()")
> 51d5ae114da8 ("loop: replace loop_validate_mutex with loop_validate_spinlock")
>
> from the tomoyo 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.
Why does the tomoyo tree have loop commits is the question?
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists