Linux-Next Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
* linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna tree
@ 2020-02-05 22:25 Stephen Rothwell
  2020-02-05 22:48 ` Al Viro
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2020-02-05 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Al Viro, Anna Schumaker, Trond Myklebust, NFS Mailing List
  Cc: Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dai Ngo

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  fs/nfs/dir.c

between commit:

  227823d2074d ("nfs: optimise readdir cache page invalidation")

from the nfs-anna tree and commit:

  ef3af2d44331 ("nfs: optimise readdir cache page invalidation")

from the vfs tree.

I fixed it up (I used the nfs-anna tree version) 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 --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna tree
  2020-02-05 22:25 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2020-02-05 22:48 ` Al Viro
  2020-02-05 23:20   ` Al Viro
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2020-02-05 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stephen Rothwell
  Cc: Anna Schumaker, Trond Myklebust, NFS Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dai Ngo

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 09:25:12AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/nfs/dir.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   227823d2074d ("nfs: optimise readdir cache page invalidation")
> 
> from the nfs-anna tree and commit:
> 
>   ef3af2d44331 ("nfs: optimise readdir cache page invalidation")
> 
> from the vfs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the nfs-anna tree version) 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.

Umm...  OK, I'll redo that merge; FWIW, the only reason I pull that
branch in the first place is that bunch of fixups needed to accomodate
it for work.fs_parse changes.

As soon as nfs-anna lands in mainline, I'm going to send Linus a pull
requrest for work.fs_parse + fixups...

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna tree
  2020-02-05 22:48 ` Al Viro
@ 2020-02-05 23:20   ` Al Viro
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2020-02-05 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Stephen Rothwell
  Cc: Anna Schumaker, Trond Myklebust, NFS Mailing List,
	Linux Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Dai Ngo

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:48:56PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 09:25:12AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/nfs/dir.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   227823d2074d ("nfs: optimise readdir cache page invalidation")
> > 
> > from the nfs-anna tree and commit:
> > 
> >   ef3af2d44331 ("nfs: optimise readdir cache page invalidation")
> > 
> > from the vfs tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I used the nfs-anna tree version) 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.
> 
> Umm...  OK, I'll redo that merge; FWIW, the only reason I pull that
> branch in the first place is that bunch of fixups needed to accomodate
> it for work.fs_parse changes.

Done - #merge.nfs-fs_parse and #for-next regenerated and force-pushed

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-05 22:25 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna tree Stephen Rothwell
2020-02-05 22:48 ` Al Viro
2020-02-05 23:20   ` Al Viro

Linux-Next Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/0 linux-next/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-next linux-next/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next \
		linux-next@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-next

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-next


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git