linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the vfs-fixes tree

linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the vfs-fixes tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 821 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/namei.c

between commit:

  1e2e547a93a0 ("do d_instantiate/unlock_new_inode combinations safely")

from the vfs-fixes tree and commit:

  ab3835aae642 ("f2fs: call unlock_new_inode() before d_instantiate()")

from the f2fs tree.

I think that the vfs-fixes commit supercedes the f2fs tree one, so I
used that.

I fixed it up (see above) 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 f2fs tree with the vfs-fixes tree

[Al Viro]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:26:24AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/f2fs/namei.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   1e2e547a93a0 ("do d_instantiate/unlock_new_inode combinations safely")
> 
> from the vfs-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   ab3835aae642 ("f2fs: call unlock_new_inode() before d_instantiate()")
> 
> from the f2fs tree.
> 
> I think that the vfs-fixes commit supercedes the f2fs tree one, so I
> used that.

Yes, it does.