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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
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.
Thanks,
Baokun
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
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.
On 2024/4/24 20:51, Christian Brauner wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, sounds good, thanks :-)
Thanks,
Gao Xiang