[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240917082332.00461c61@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:23:32 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)"
<willy@...radead.org>, Shida Zhang <zhangshida@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the ext4
tree
Hi all,
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 09:15:32 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got conflicts in:
>
> fs/ext4/inline.c
> fs/ext4/inode.c
>
> between commits:
>
> a256c25ef1b1 ("ext4: hoist ext4_block_write_begin and replace the __block_write_begin")
> 64f2355d7f8a ("ext4: fix a potential assertion failure due to improperly dirtied buffer")
>
> from the ext4 tree and commit:
>
> 9f04609f74ec ("buffer: Convert __block_write_begin() to take a folio")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
>
> I fixed it up (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 ext4 tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists