On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:31:33 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 06:59 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:46 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > include/linux/fs.h
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 9dcc0577f2a4 ("mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits")
> > >
> > > from the wberr tree and patch:
> > >
> > > "mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits"
> > >
> > > from the akpm tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (I just dropped the akpm tree patch) 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 didn't realize that Andrew was going to pick that one up. I'll drop it
> > from my tree.
Please don't do that. When a patch turns up in linux-next I'll drop my
copy. If you then drop your copy, the patch is lost.
> > Thanks!
>
> Actually, I take it back. Jan had some comments about the commit message
> and I'd like to revise this. Andrew, do you mind dropping this patch
> instead?
Yes, do that ;)
--
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
