From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the ext3 tree Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:36:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20180227093615.rjdlert2bd5smurb@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20180227141153.417a520e@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180227141153.417a520e@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Andrew Morton , Jan Kara , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Shakeel Butt List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hi Stephen! On Tue 27-02-18 14:11:53, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got conflicts in: > > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.h > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > fs/notify/inotify/inotify_fsnotify.c > > between commits: > > 1e301852d657 ("fanotify: Avoid lost events due to ENOMEM for unlimited queues") > b900420e4109 ("fsnotify: Let userspace know about lost events due to ENOMEM") > > from the ext3 tree and commit: > > d519ceef2ad6 ("fs: fsnotify: account fsnotify metadata to kmemcg") > > from the akpm-current tree. > > I fixed it up (see below - I simplified the obvious resolution a bit) 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 for the conflict resolution. It looks good! Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR