2015-07-30 01:23:28

by Stephen Rothwell

Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in:

fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c

between commit:

bdcc2cd14e4e ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")

from Linus' tree and commit:

0183ae17c741 ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")

from the nfsd tree.

The only difference here is that _nfs42_proc_llseek is static in the
former, so I used that.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]

2015-07-30 01:35:13

by Trond Myklebust

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree

Hi Stephen,

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c
>
> between commit:
>
> bdcc2cd14e4e ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
> 0183ae17c741 ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
>
> from the nfsd tree.
>
> The only difference here is that _nfs42_proc_llseek is static in the
> former, so I used that.
>

Yes, I snuck that declaration into the patch since it was obvious that
we would never want to export _nfs42_proc_llseek(), and because
"sparse" complained. Apologies if that caused a conflict...

Cheers
Trond

2015-07-30 02:12:14

by J. Bruce Fields

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 09:35:11PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > bdcc2cd14e4e ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
> >
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> >
> > 0183ae17c741 ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
> >
> > from the nfsd tree.
> >
> > The only difference here is that _nfs42_proc_llseek is static in the
> > former, so I used that.

Whoops, thanks, I shouldn't have even had that one in my tree....

> Yes, I snuck that declaration into the patch since it was obvious that
> we would never want to export _nfs42_proc_llseek(), and because
> "sparse" complained. Apologies if that caused a conflict...

I actually noticed that, then noticed a bunch of other stuff there had
the same problem, then started to make a patch to fix all those in one
fell swoop, then decided I was being annoying and dropped it.

Um.

--b.