Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:37:42 -0400 (EDT) | From | Ronnie Sahlberg <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with Linus' tree |
| |
Steve,
Looks good. It builds and seems to work in my testing. Thanks.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve French" <smfrench@gmail.com> To: "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Cc: "CIFS" <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>, "Linux-Next Mailing List" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>, "Ronnie Sahlberg" <lsahlber@redhat.com>, "Aurelien Aptel" <aaptel@suse.com> Sent: Thursday, 14 June, 2018 10:40:43 AM Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with Linus' tree
Ronnie,
I fixed up that patch and repushed to cifs-2.6.git for-next. Seems trivial. Let me know if any issues.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/cifs/transport.c > > between commit: > > 6da2ec56059c ("treewide: kmalloc() -> kmalloc_array()") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 1560d69e21c6 ("cifs: push rfc1002 generation down the stack") > > from the cifs tree. > > I fixed it up (the latter removed the code modified by 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. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell
-- Thanks,
Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| |