Hi Stephen, On 2024/4/24 09:26, Baokun Li wrote:
Hi Stephen, On 2024/4/24 8:24, Stephen Rothwell wrote:Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in: fs/erofs/super.c between commits: ab1bbc1735ff ("erofs: get rid of erofs_fs_context") 569a48fed355 ("erofs: reliably distinguish block based and fscache mode") from the erofs-fixes tree and commit: e4f586a41748 ("erofs: reliably distinguish block based and fscache mode") from the vfs-brauner tree. I fixed it up (I think - I used the former version) 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.Christian previously mentioned that the fix from the vfs-brauner tree was an accident: "An an accident on my part as I left it in the vfs.fixes branch." So the two commits from the erofs-fixes tree are the final fixes. I'm very sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Yeah, Christian was picked this fix by accident as mentioned in, https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240419-tundra-komodowaran-5c3758d496e4@brauner I guest that was due to his local work at that time since the original idea to fix this issue was from him (thanks again!). Currently I tend to submit these two fixes on my own for this development cycle in order to meet the test plans. Thanks, Gao Xiang
Thanks, Baokun
