Message-ID: <1501585159.4702.0.camel@poochiereds.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the wberr tree
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 06:59:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20170801154634.0a01acdc@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <20170801154634.0a01acdc@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 974
Lines: 31

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 <jlayton@poochiereds.net>