On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 09:35:11PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > bdcc2cd14e4e ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
> >
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> >
> > 0183ae17c741 ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
> >
> > from the nfsd tree.
> >
> > The only difference here is that _nfs42_proc_llseek is static in the
> > former, so I used that.
Whoops, thanks, I shouldn't have even had that one in my tree....
> Yes, I snuck that declaration into the patch since it was obvious that
> we would never want to export _nfs42_proc_llseek(), and because
> "sparse" complained. Apologies if that caused a conflict...
I actually noticed that, then noticed a bunch of other stuff there had
the same problem, then started to make a patch to fix all those in one
fell swoop, then decided I was being annoying and dropped it.
Um.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
