Hi Jan,
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:50:06 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed 25-11-09 14:06:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the ext3 tree got a conflict in fs/cifs/dir.c
> > between commit cea62343956c24452700c06cf028b72414c58a74 ("[CIFS]
> > Duplicate data on appending to some Samba servers") from the cifs tree
> > and commit 618903228b94b67a1d04634a83ea9cdb99c09e37 ("vfs: Implement
> > proper O_SYNC semantics") from the ext3 tree.
> Thanks for notification and fixup.
>
> > Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as
> > necessary.
> Looking at the code, I don't see an easy way of resolving this by changing
> either mine or CIFS tree - I have other patches depending on this and this
> patch depending on others and I assume it's similar with CIFS... So I guess
> we'll have to live with this conflict.
Its not a big issue and even if it hits Linus' tree that way, I think he
would not mind.
I have just noticed that I get the same conflict between the cifs tree
and the fsnotify tree (hi Eric!) which has also included that patch from
Christoph. Again, not a big problem.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpSvU2Hc4T72.pgp
Description: PGP signature
