From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754434AbbG3CMO (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:12:14 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:33182 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754373AbbG3CMN (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:12:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:12:12 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20150730021212.GB25234@fieldses.org> References: <20150730112325.72240f81@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 09:35:11PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in: > > > > fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c > > > > between commit: > > > > bdcc2cd14e4e ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors") > > > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > > > 0183ae17c741 ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors") > > > > from the nfsd tree. > > > > The only difference here is that _nfs42_proc_llseek is static in the > > former, so I used that. Whoops, thanks, I shouldn't have even had that one in my tree.... > Yes, I snuck that declaration into the patch since it was obvious that > we would never want to export _nfs42_proc_llseek(), and because > "sparse" complained. Apologies if that caused a conflict... I actually noticed that, then noticed a bunch of other stuff there had the same problem, then started to make a patch to fix all those in one fell swoop, then decided I was being annoying and dropped it. Um. --b.