From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 01:30:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20160725003028.GQ2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20160725102453.7fbe3ddd@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:55064 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752732AbcGYAac (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jul 2016 20:30:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160725102453.7fbe3ddd@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Miklos Szeredi , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:24:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/overlayfs/super.c > > between commit: > > e2475b7276d0 ("ovl: check mounter creds on underlying lookup") > > from the overlayfs tree and commit: > > b3ac9a85b31c ("qstr: constify instances in overlayfs") > > from the vfs tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) 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. FWIW, if Miklos could pick that one-liner into overlayfs tree, I'd be only happy to drop it from that queue.