[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51ae860f-fc8d-fc76-d326-68308e98bf7d@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:17:43 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
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 btrfs tree with the mm tree
Hi Stephen,
The diff looks good to me.
Thanks,
Qi
On 2023/9/15 07:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [Forgot the diff ...]
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:14:21 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> fs/btrfs/super.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> c0824542e4d1 ("fs: super: dynamically allocate the s_shrink")
>>
>> from the mm tree and commit:
>>
>> 2ebed4689ba2 ("btrfs: open block devices after superblock creation")
>>
>> from the btrfs 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.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists