Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:32:30 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the wberr tree |
| |
On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:31:33 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 06:59 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:46 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > > > > > include/linux/fs.h > > > > > > between commit: > > > > > > 9dcc0577f2a4 ("mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits") > > > > > > from the wberr tree and patch: > > > > > > "mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits" > > > > > > from the akpm tree. > > > > > > I fixed it up (I just dropped the akpm tree patch) 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. > > > > > > > I didn't realize that Andrew was going to pick that one up. I'll drop it > > from my tree.
Please don't do that. When a patch turns up in linux-next I'll drop my copy. If you then drop your copy, the patch is lost.
> > Thanks! > > Actually, I take it back. Jan had some comments about the commit message > and I'd like to revise this. Andrew, do you mind dropping this patch > instead?
Yes, do that ;)
| |