On 1/24/23 17:32, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 09:11:47AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> 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. > > I don't rebase branches after they're in -next as soon as someone > wants to depend on them. I understand that. Nobody does. > >> >> 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... > > I understand merge conflicts aren't pleasant as I'm dealing with them on > a regular basis myself and I'm sorry that this is causing churn for you. The conflict is fine, I can handle. I was more surprised that patches touching zonefs were applied without acks from me. > > Similar to other large branches such as the initial folio conversion > that affected a lot of filesystems and other branches of mine it simply > becomes impractical to generate a massive recipients list. Fair enough. > All filesystems were touched in non-semantical ways and simply replace a > vfs type. That I saw :) > > One of linux-next's tasks is to find generated merge conflicts so that > we can coordinate. As usual, I will send a list of merge conflicts > caused by one of our branches to Linus and point him to the relevant > threads that Steven reported with proposed resolutions as he prefers to > fix them up himself. > > Sorry for the inconvenience. All solved now. My morning was only a little more busy than expected dealing with this :) Thanks. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
