Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Jan 2020 12:40:51 +1100 | From | Stephen Rothwell <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree |
| |
Hi Jens,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:34:59 -0700 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote: > > On 12/19/19 6:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > > > fs/open.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 0a51692d49ec ("open: introduce openat2(2) syscall") > > > > from the vfs tree and commit: > > > > 252270311374 ("fs: make build_open_flags() available internally") > > > > from the block tree. > > > > I fixed it up (see at end, plus the merge fix patch 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. > > Thanks Stephen, I may just pull in the vfs tree to avoid this conflict.
I looks like Al has rewritten the branch you merged from his tree and caused various conflicts in my merge of the block tree today. I used Al's new versions of the conflicting files.
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |