linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the nfsd tree

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the nfsd tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  block/blk-flush.c

between commit:

  bed5a600c6b0 ("block: Revert 615939a2ae73")

from the nfsd tree and commits:

  28b241237470 ("blk-flush: fix rq->flush.seq for post-flush requests")
  b175c86739d3 ("blk-flush: count inflight flush_data requests")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (I used the former, though I wonder if 28b241237470 fixes
what the revert is trying to work around) 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 block tree with the nfsd tree

[Chuck Lever]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 11:03:34AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/blk-flush.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   bed5a600c6b0 ("block: Revert 615939a2ae73")
> 
> from the nfsd tree and commits:
> 
>   28b241237470 ("blk-flush: fix rq->flush.seq for post-flush requests")
>   b175c86739d3 ("blk-flush: count inflight flush_data requests")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the former, though I wonder if 28b241237470 fixes
> what the revert is trying to work around) 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.

Damn. I forgot bed5a was in my public tree. I haven't sent that out
for review yet. Stephen, please drop bed5a, and I will remove it
from nfsd-next as well.


-- 
Chuck Lever