[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/N8hVWeR3AjssUC@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:58:29 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>,
"Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the cifs tree
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 03:29:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the mm-stable tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/cifs/file.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c8859bc0c129 ("cifs: Remove unused code")
>
> from the cifs tree and commits:
>
> 4cda80f3a7a5 ("cifs: convert wdata_alloc_and_fillpages() to use filemap_get_folios_tag()")
> d585bdbeb79a ("fs: convert writepage_t callback to pass a folio")
>
> from the mm-stable tree.
>
> This is a real mess :-(
Doesn't look too bad to me. Dave's commit is just removing the
functions, so it doesn't matter how they're being changed.
The real question in my mind is why for-next is being updated two days
before the merge window with new patches. What's the point in -next
if patches are being added at this late point?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists