Hi Andrew, On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:40:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 20:57:58 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 04:18:19 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Please include a new tree in linux-next: > > > > > > https://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git/shortlog/refs/heads/for-next > > > aka > > > git://git.infradead.org/users/willy/pagecache.git for-next > > > > > > There are some minor conflicts with mmotm. I resolved some of them by > > > pulling in three patches from mmotm and rebasing on top of them. > > > These conflicts (or near-misses) still remain, and I'm showing my > > > resolution: > > > > I'm thinking that it would be better if I were to base all of the -mm > > MM patches on linux-next. Otherwise Stephen is going to have a pretty > > miserable two months... > > If they are only minor conflicts, then please leave them to me (and > Linus). That way if Linus decides not to take the folio tree or the > mmotm changes (or they get radically changed), then they are not > contaminated by each other ... hints (or example resolutions) are > always welcome. Also, I prefer to have less, not more, of the mmotm patch set depending on the rest of linux-next since fixing conflicts while rebasing is often more pain than while merging. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpfs2TQLXrC4.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
