Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 21:41:46 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the btrfs-fixes
 tree
Message-ID: <20220906194146.GV13489@suse.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
References: <20220906095055.498d90ea@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20220906101549.1cfee0d4@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220906101549.1cfee0d4@canb.auug.org.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 10:15:49AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:50:55 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/btrfs/zoned.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   6ca64ac27631 ("btrfs: zoned: fix mounting with conventional zones")
> > 
> > from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:
> > 
> >   e5182af66852 ("btrfs: convert block group bit field to use bit helpers")
> > 
> > from the btrfs tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (the former removed some of the code modified by the latter)
> > 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.
> 
> Actually the fix up is below ...

Thanks, looks correct to me. I've pushed a new for-next snapshot that
has the conflict resolved too.