On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:01 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> As usual, I did a test-merge with the main upstream branch as of a few
> minutes ago, and didn't see any conflicts. Please let me know if you
> encounter any problems.
Well... There are no conflicts, because there are no changes.
All of these commits actually already came to me earlier through Andrew's tree.
I suspect you actually saw an empty diff when you did the test-merge,
but didn't realize that "empty diff" in this case was literally
exactly that (as opposed to "there was a diff, just that it was not
shown").
So for example, you had commit 3a0a36f143e4 ("fsdax,xfs: port unshare
to fsdax") but my tree got commit d984648e428b ("fsdax,xfs: port
unshare to fsdax") from Andrew Morton back last week when I did his MM
merge (my merge commit is e2ca6ba6ba01).
I'm skipping this pull request, because the end result ends up being
zero actual code changes, with all the commits having duplicates.
Git handled it fine, auto-merging it all, but it just doesn't seem
sensible to merge just to get that duplicate history.
Adding Andrew to the Cc, because obviously there was some
communication failure and confusion here. Quite often the dax changes
*do* fome through Andrew, so maybe the only issue this time was that
because it only really affected XFS, we ended up having that "xfs
people _also_ worked on it".
Linus
