[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240916094201.212c3b23@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:42:01 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Al Viro
<viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Aleksa Sarai
<cyphar@...har.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Networking
<netdev@...r.kernel.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 bpf-next tree with the
vfs-brauner tree
Hi all,
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 10:56:29 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/coda/inode.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 626c2be9822d ("coda: use param->file for FSCONFIG_SET_FD")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>
> 1da91ea87aef ("introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it.")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code modified by the latter, so I
> used the former) 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 vfs tree and the vfs-branuer tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists