[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211206085650.09dcb11e@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 08:56:50 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@...rosoft.com>,
Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree
Hi all,
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:41:39 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got conflicts in:
>
> fs/cifs/connect.c
> fs/cifs/fscache.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 935b45107a80 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)")
>
> from the fscache tree and commits:
>
> 9d0245fc6a2e ("cifs: wait for tcon resource_id before getting fscache super")
> c148f8eb032f ("cifs: add server conn_id to fscache client cookie")
> b1f962ba272b ("cifs: avoid use of dstaddr as key for fscache client cookie")
>
> from the cifs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the former 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.
These are now conflict between the fscache tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists