[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0c875429-1245-41b7-8573-6b011eb4d923@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:32:14 -0400
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...il.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with the nfs tree
On 3/20/25 6:11 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 11a149e09d58 ("sunrpc: make rpc_restart_call() and rpc_restart_call_prepare() void return")
>
> from the nfs tree and commits:
>
> 6c1cefb84b3d ("nfsd: lift NFSv4.0 handling out of nfsd4_cb_sequence_done()")
> f049911b5b98 ("nfsd: only check RPC_SIGNALLED() when restarting rpc_task")
>
> from the nfsd 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.
Since 11a149e09d58 is only clean up, I prefer that it be dropped from
the nfs tree until v6.16. Trond, if you don't want to do that, then I
can include a merge conflict notice in my pull request for v6.15.
--
Chuck Lever
Powered by blists - more mailing lists