Message-ID: <1501587093.4702.6.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 07:31:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1501585159.4702.0.camel@poochiereds.net>
References: <20170801154634.0a01acdc@canb.auug.org.au>
         <1501585159.4702.0.camel@poochiereds.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1247
Lines: 38

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 <jlayton@poochiereds.net>