[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SG2P153MB03504A773C5F7B6C75E410F5946E9@SG2P153MB0350.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 08:28:34 +0000
From: Shyam Prasad <Shyam.Prasad@...rosoft.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
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>,
Steven French <Steven.French@...rosoft.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the
fscache tree
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:27 AM
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 <Shyam.Prasad@...rosoft.com>; Steven French <Steven.French@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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
================================
Hi David,
As we discussed offline, I will test out the fscache rewrite integration in cifs.ko later this week and submit the final patch to linux-cifs mailing list.
As a part of this, I will fix all the conflicts that arise.
Is this okay with you?
I hope this will eliminate the conflicts between the two trees for now?
Regards,
Shyam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists