On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 05:39, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:13:03 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the efi tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/efivarfs/super.c
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> > 0b6d38bdd6f8 ("efivarfs: Free s_fs_info on unmount")
> > ab5c4251a009 ("efivarfs: Move efivarfs list into superblock s_fs_info")
> >
> > from the efi-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> > b501d5b36f58 ("efivarfs: automatically update super block flag")
> >
> > from the efi 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.
>
> Actually the below is needed. ("info" is not a great name for, even a
> static, global variable. And maybe what I have called "einfo" could be
> "sfi" like in efivarfs_kill_sb() ...)
Apologies, I should have spotted this myself.
I'll fix this up and sync up the branches so any conflicts are
resolved before they reach you.
