Hi Andrew,
Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
include/linux/fs.h
between commit:
9dcc0577f2a4 ("mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits")
from the wberr tree and patch:
"mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits"
from the akpm tree.
I fixed it up (I just dropped the akpm tree patch) 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:46 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/linux/fs.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 9dcc0577f2a4 ("mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits")
>
> from the wberr tree and patch:
>
> "mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits"
>
> from the akpm tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just dropped the akpm tree patch) 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.
>
I didn't realize that Andrew was going to pick that one up. I'll drop it
from my tree.
Thanks!
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 06:59 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:46 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > include/linux/fs.h
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 9dcc0577f2a4 ("mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits")
> >
> > from the wberr tree and patch:
> >
> > "mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits"
> >
> > from the akpm tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just dropped the akpm tree patch) 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.
> >
>
> I didn't realize that Andrew was going to pick that one up. I'll drop it
> from my tree.
>
> Thanks!
Actually, I take it back. Jan had some comments about the commit message
and I'd like to revise this. Andrew, do you mind dropping this patch
instead?
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:31:33 -0400 Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 06:59 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:46 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > include/linux/fs.h
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > 9dcc0577f2a4 ("mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits")
> > >
> > > from the wberr tree and patch:
> > >
> > > "mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits"
> > >
> > > from the akpm tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (I just dropped the akpm tree patch) 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.
> > >
> >
> > I didn't realize that Andrew was going to pick that one up. I'll drop it
> > from my tree.
Please don't do that. When a patch turns up in linux-next I'll drop my
copy. If you then drop your copy, the patch is lost.
> > Thanks!
>
> Actually, I take it back. Jan had some comments about the commit message
> and I'd like to revise this. Andrew, do you mind dropping this patch
> instead?
Yes, do that ;)