linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the ubifs tree

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the ubifs tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 843 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  fs/ubifs/super.c

between commit:

  9163e0184bd7d5f ("ubifs: Fix memory leak bug in alloc_ubifs_info() error path")

from the ubifs tree and commit:

  50d7aad57710e2b ("vfs: Convert ubifs to use the new mount API")

from the vfs tree.

I fixed it up dropping the ubifs change 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.

diff --cc fs/ubifs/super.c
index 7d4547e5202de,a5fa725e7cf16..0000000000000
--- a/fs/ubifs/super.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/super.c

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 144 bytes --]

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the ubifs tree

[Richard Weinberger]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:40 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/ubifs/super.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   9163e0184bd7d5f ("ubifs: Fix memory leak bug in alloc_ubifs_info() error path")
>
> from the ubifs tree and commit:
>
>   50d7aad57710e2b ("vfs: Convert ubifs to use the new mount API")
>
> from the vfs tree.
>
> I fixed it up dropping the ubifs change 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 a lot for letting me know!

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/