On 1/19/20 7:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/19/20 6:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's a bummer. I guess I'll have to rebase on top of the new one. Al,
> is the new one going to be persistent?
Stephen, I rebased and pushed it out, verified that the io_uring bits
are identical to before. So at least this should be painless for you on
next pull.
--
Jens Axboe
