[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240312150001.471d3d94@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:00:01 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Steve French
<smfrench@...il.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the cifs
tree
Hi all,
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:03:43 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/smb/client/file.c
>
> between commit:
>
> d7e87923939a ("cifs: Fix writeback data corruption")
>
> from the cifs tree and commit:
>
> a69ce85ec9af ("filelock: split common fields into struct file_lock_core")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
>
> Please do not do unrelated white space cleanups ...
>
> I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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.
This is now a conflict between the cifs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists