On 1/24/23 09:07, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Damien, > > On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:30:29 +0900 Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> OK. I think I will merge the 3 patches that create the conflict and rebase >> the patches. I need that for retesting at least. But given the size of the >> conflict resolution, I may push that as an update to my for-6.3/for-next >> branch. Let me see... >> >>> Alternatively, just leave the fix up to Linus (but mention it to him >>> when you send your pull requests). >> >> Understood. Let me retest first :) > > When I said "merge", I meant literally "git merge <some stable branch > from the vfs-mapping tree that contains the conflicting commit>" not > cherry pick the commits i.e. you would need to coordinate with > Christian about having a common branch (or making sure that the part of > his tree you pull in is immutable). Yep, cherry picking did not work :) I did a merge test and came up with the same resolution as you did. It looks good. It looks big but is in fact fairly simple. I will keep it as is and signal it to Linus when I send my PR. But retesting everything to be sure there are no issues. Christian, Next time, when you touch an fs, please cc the maintainer for acks. I had that zonefs series ready for a while and we could have coordinated for the conflict... -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
