From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_DKIM_INVALID,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC197C5CFC1 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875C520896 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="PaGcBbzX" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 875C520896 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arndb.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755908AbeFOHo5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2018 03:44:57 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65]:33774 "EHLO mail-lf0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755385AbeFOHoz (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jun 2018 03:44:55 -0400 Received: by mail-lf0-f65.google.com with SMTP id y20-v6so13285178lfy.0; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:44:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=pef7SoFVSbN3FjBzHDn0ftfsWwWvv2P3AV71UObMx0c=; b=PaGcBbzXMuonDY4hEOdln2/3qXAkiZp+NPOE7Ps0ydfl/pCKDT571IBRi8M01QrBUu XATtS21HcNTHh5uDUCc0bwTERqTicj+UG6+vdNS9VfFauHv2/lrhb19yUDzcfNHEdUrL bNyoSqbXUYzHwoEEUdjv9THJ3Vp4PQBhl0LHB0+hdElz+0KisnR4Dvz3EW0pJzS3U2ZB izu5CWrGveSKMxFuNumipPlrgj5IvChmYSj8+7Y4uJlm9U/4GMxUoConv2sv5gzXCXCX 6FRE8b9ipl2HFbU4g5qhAvoNufqutMVV6PMAYj84xUhIdefYU5jSqnSa5XT0CdbCxRuc jL1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pef7SoFVSbN3FjBzHDn0ftfsWwWvv2P3AV71UObMx0c=; b=euTU0A6vac8i62ZTLqvnb2j+KSJZB0ie4utTA/3BRodB/48W6cIopqloJHQ269xbXa STUleD1BIY0Yso7tvsf1NrQa6Rj0CbvBQyv2NDUKV37jpO5Zu6Wpo5/aFaU7zZApfpte kght3xAOowrGsUBjjucqR3Cpt2is2X2Kpx9E7ES2e27IRYgbPS/D53DcdLtdOh62XIUu 24FwPutXV1oY6VL8DrKGPhDQzW5oTh+z/Fe2z1vcXMjXVvQQaAUl1ZWz9VIYgDGm0s7y FeHMRC9x86CX2FeQZuwfk98F7tMCtKcRKH+TFON3WlI1T3DoF6ptPmx2PU/v6GwppnKt etvw== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3dFeQ/Din9mklQ/K3kPQlwBDrM+5v0y3jZGeJ4CA813eJU0aEd beosBIvavF9R36LhbbYp7Ajrx0PPYgd8k1betSw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKlOaiXqJVnUm+UVt+4PVh8sCIad+FRIrTTZcWb7DM+L5a1Maf7XO4GGImn3Yayjf/MdTxjsnFQNQRHVm7uqp8= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:40d9:: with SMTP id r86-v6mr508402lje.19.1529048694190; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:44:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a2e:56c8:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:44:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180615124106.316e7401@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20180615104324.76f86eae@canb.auug.org.au> <20180615124106.316e7401@canb.auug.org.au> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 09:44:53 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SCGK-Z0XgvV90EmJA2yJnZ-0-BE Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the y2038 tree with the overlayfs tree To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Deepa Dinamani Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > This is now a conflict between the overlayfs tree and Linus' tree. (I > restarted my merging after I noticed that Linus merged more stuff.) Right, I had mentioned this in my pull request message to Linus. Until yesterday, I had the conflict resolution against the overlayfs and NFS trees in my y2038 tree and was waiting for both to get merged first so I could send the pull request. NFS got merged earlier this week, and when I looked at the mail thread about overlayfs, I concluded that it wouldn't make it: the changes in the overlayfs tree in linux-next are the version that got Nak'ed earlier, and the discussion about trying to fix it ended without a positive conclusion. This should be addressed as soon as Miklos rebases his changes on top of 4.18-rc1 for the following merge window. Arnd