Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751868AbdHAWcd (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:32:33 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:40534 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751826AbdHAWcb (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:32:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:32:30 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jeff Layton Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the wberr tree Message-Id: <20170801153230.4ac75584959f3f5391c2341c@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1501587093.4702.6.camel@poochiereds.net> References: <20170801154634.0a01acdc@canb.auug.org.au> <1501585159.4702.0.camel@poochiereds.net> <1501587093.4702.6.camel@poochiereds.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: 1485 Lines: 41 On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:31:33 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote: > 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. Please don't do that. When a patch turns up in linux-next I'll drop my copy. If you then drop your copy, the patch is lost. > > 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? Yes, do that ;)