On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 10:13:43AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> 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!).
Yeah, sorry about that. I dropped it a few days ago but was on the road
for a bit. I'll push a new version by eod.
