Hi Miklos,
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:16:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-miklos tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/read_write.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 97e147358bea ("vfs: wrap write f_ops with file_{start,end}_write()")
>
> from the overlayfs tree and various duplicated patches between v4.10-rc1
> and the vfs-miklos tree.
>
> Please clean up the vfs-miklos tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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.
>
> I then got this build failure from my arm multi_v7_defconfig build:
>
> In file included from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/seq_file.h:10:0,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/consumer.h:17,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h:21,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/device.h:24,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/dma-mapping.h:6,
> from /home/sfr/next/next/arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:16:
> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:2566:19: error: redefinition of 'do_clone
> _file_range'
> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> ^
> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:1743:19: note: previous definition of 'do_clone_file_range' was here
> static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
> ^
>
> so I decided to just drop the vfs-miklos tree for today.
This mess is still there ...
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
--
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
