Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753451AbdGCM5Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2017 08:57:24 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:45393 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752038AbdGCM5W (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2017 08:57:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 22:57:19 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Jeff Layton Cc: Kees Cook , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the file-locks tree Message-ID: <20170703225719.7c323d6a@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <1499077647.4737.2.camel@poochiereds.net> References: <20170621163211.35abbb57@canb.auug.org.au> <20170703114807.70d7624d@canb.auug.org.au> <1499077647.4737.2.camel@poochiereds.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 688 Lines: 23 Hi Jeff, On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 06:27:27 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote: > > I think this is fairly trivial conflict -- Kees is adding the > __randomize_layout attribute here, and I'm just adding a field to each > of these structs. Yep, nothing too tricky here. > The main catch is that both of these branches have a fair number of > preparatory patches before the above changes occur, so pulling one into > the other is not trivial. > > Would it be best to just send the PRs to Linus and have him fix this up > in the final merge? Absolutely the right thing to do. The reminder is mainly so you can just mention the conflict to Linus. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell