2018-06-05 2:59 GMT+02:00 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:34:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the xfs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> fs/gfs2/bmap.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 628e366df11c ("gfs2: Iomap cleanups and improvements")
>>
>> from Linus' tree and commit:
>>
>> 7ee66c03e40a ("iomap: move IOMAP_F_BOUNDARY to gfs2")
>>
>> from the xfs tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
>
> We should have seen this before the gfs2 tree was merged into Linus'
> tree. Does that mean the gfs2 tree is not being pulled into the
> linux-next tree?
That's probably our fault, the gfs2 for-next branch was slightly
outdated. That patch would have been better in the gfs2 tree. How
would you like to proceed?
Thanks,
Andreas
--
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
