[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230524-unumkehrbar-abbezahlen-f7b2865fe532@brauner>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 11:08:29 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
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 vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd
tree
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 09:56:14AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c
>
> between commit:
>
> fed41678532c ("nfsd: don't provide pre/post-op attrs if fh_getattr fails")
>
> from the nfsd tree and commit:
>
> 1a6f4cbffdf5 ("nfsd: ensure we use ctime_peek to grab the inode->i_ctime")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the version from the nsfd tree - which
> removed the code modified by the latter) 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.
I'll drop Jeff's series from vfs.all since he's about to send a new
version anyway. Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists