Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
References: <20191220123614.5f11d2e3@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <f6ff3aa5-e08b-8b25-454a-9aa51b8b5c37@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:34:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191220123614.5f11d2e3@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/19/19 6:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/open.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0a51692d49ec ("open: introduce openat2(2) syscall")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   252270311374 ("fs: make build_open_flags() available internally")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see at end, plus the merge fix patch below) 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.

Thanks Stephen, I may just pull in the vfs tree to avoid this conflict.

-- 
Jens Axboe