linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna tree

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- 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 --]

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

[Al Viro]

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...

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

[Al Viro]

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