Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <0b1ceba8-fca1-3b47-411b-434c4c46ac45@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sun, 22 May 2022 20:58:53 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Dylan Yudaken <dylany@fb.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220523122827.657f2ab8@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <20220523122827.657f2ab8@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/22/22 8:28 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/io_uring.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4329490a78b6 ("io_uring_enter(): don't leave f.flags uninitialized")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   3e813c902672 ("io_uring: rework io_uring_enter to simplify return value")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (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.

Fixup looks good, thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe