Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:42:44 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree
Message-ID: <20211102104244.GH20319@suse.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
References: <20211101105341.5fde8108@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211101105341.5fde8108@canb.auug.org.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:53:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/lzo.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ccaa66c8dd27 ("Revert "btrfs: compression: drop kmap/kunmap from lzo"")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   d4088803f511 ("btrfs: subpage: make lzo_compress_pages() compatible")
> 
> from the btrfs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (this may be completely wrong or incomplete :-( - see 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, it's a bit different that I did as a proposed conflict
resulution and Linus resolved it in a yet another way. I'll refresh my
for-next branch today to minimize the conflict surface.