From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754954AbcIEBrP (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Sep 2016 21:47:15 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:37147 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754930AbcIEBrO (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Sep 2016 21:47:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:47:07 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: David Sterba Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josef Bacik Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs-kdave tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20160905114707.6da38214@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi David, Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs-kdave tree got a conflict in: fs/btrfs/send.c between commit: 3dc09ec895f0 ("Btrfs: kill invalid ASSERT() in process_all_refs()") from Linus' tree and commit: 8e991cbbea49 ("Btrfs: handle pending renames with recycled inodes properly") from the btrfs-kdave tree. I fixed it up (I just used the latter 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