Hi Jens,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:34:59 -0700 Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 12/19/19 6:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/open.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 0a51692d49ec ("open: introduce openat2(2) syscall")
> >
> > from the vfs tree and commit:
> >
> > 252270311374 ("fs: make build_open_flags() available internally")
> >
> > from the block tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see at end, plus the merge fix patch 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.
>
> Thanks Stephen, I may just pull in the vfs tree to avoid this conflict.
I looks like Al has rewritten the branch you merged from his tree and
caused various conflicts in my merge of the block tree today. I used
Al's new versions of the conflicting files.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpLaePpZJR5S.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
