-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:27 AM
To: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx>; CIFS <linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Shyam Prasad <Shyam.Prasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Steven French <Steven.French@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree
Hi all,
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:41:39 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got conflicts in:
>
> fs/cifs/connect.c
> fs/cifs/fscache.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 935b45107a80 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)")
>
> from the fscache tree and commits:
>
> 9d0245fc6a2e ("cifs: wait for tcon resource_id before getting fscache super")
> c148f8eb032f ("cifs: add server conn_id to fscache client cookie")
> b1f962ba272b ("cifs: avoid use of dstaddr as key for fscache client
> cookie")
>
> from the cifs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the former versions) 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.
These are now conflict between the fscache tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
================================
Hi David,
As we discussed offline, I will test out the fscache rewrite integration in cifs.ko later this week and submit the final patch to linux-cifs mailing list.
As a part of this, I will fix all the conflicts that arise.
Is this okay with you?
I hope this will eliminate the conflicts between the two trees for now?
Regards,
Shyam
