[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250528092333.10969c39@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 09:23:33 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 tip tree with the bcachefs tree
Hi all,
On Mon, 26 May 2025 14:42:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/bcachefs/clock.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 881e64bc3a17 ("bcachefs: bch2_kthread_io_clock_wait_once()")
>
> from the bcachefs tree and commit:
>
> aad823aa3a7d ("treewide, timers: Rename destroy_timer_on_stack() as timer_destroy_on_stack()")
>
> from the tip tree.
>
> I fixed it up (the former removed a line updated by the latter, so I
> just used that) 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 bcachefs tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists