linux-next: manual merge of the fscache tree with the asm-generic tree

linux-next: manual merge of the fscache tree with the asm-generic tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 885 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the fscache tree got a conflict in:

  Documentation/filesystems/caching/fscache.rst

between commits:

  d881c06e0890 ("Documentation, arch: Remove leftovers from fscache/cachefiles histograms")
  5c61c384095a ("Documentation, arch, fs: Remove leftovers from fscache object list")

from the asm-generic tree and commit:

  ac1c0f96f4c0 ("fscache: Rewrite documentation")

from the fscache tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the fscache tree with the asm-generic tree

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 1:07 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the fscache tree got a conflict in:
>
>   Documentation/filesystems/caching/fscache.rst
>
> between commits:
>
>   d881c06e0890 ("Documentation, arch: Remove leftovers from fscache/cachefiles histograms")
>   5c61c384095a ("Documentation, arch, fs: Remove leftovers from fscache object list")
>
> from the asm-generic tree and commit:
>
>   ac1c0f96f4c0 ("fscache: Rewrite documentation")
>
> from the fscache tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.

Hi Alexandre,

There are three conflicts between these two patches and the fscache tree,
which apparently has some of the same changes, plus more.

I would suggest I drop both of the above from the asm-generic tree, and
you rebase them on top of the latest fscache tree so David can pick up
whatever is left from your changes.

       Arnd

linux-next: manual merge of the fscache tree with the asm-generic tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 791 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the fscache tree got a conflict in:

  fs/fscache/object.c

between commit:

  5c61c384095a ("Documentation, arch, fs: Remove leftovers from fscache object list")

from the asm-generic tree and commit:

  b03429170e20 ("fscache: Remove the contents of the fscache driver, pending rewrite")

from the fscache tree.

I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the fscache tree with the asm-generic tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 758 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the fscache tree got a conflict in:

  fs/fscache/proc.c

between commit:

  5c61c384095a ("Documentation, arch, fs: Remove leftovers from fscache object list")

from the asm-generic tree and commit:

  8ed89a0cad0c ("fscache: Introduce new driver")

from the fscache tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]