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;
Message-ID: <da89f6e8-31b6-70bd-f0af-6cf49fb08c56@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 07:47:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.1
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Dylan Yudaken <dylany@meta.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
References: <20221121134617.7eec695a@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <20221121134617.7eec695a@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/20/22 7:46 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   io_uring/net.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   91482864768a ("io_uring: fix multishot accept request leaks")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commits:
> 
>   01661287389d ("io_uring: revert "io_uring fix multishot accept ordering"")
>   6488182c989a ("io_uring: remove allow_overflow parameter")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version where they conflicted) 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 fixed up the 6.2 io_uring branch and for-next, so you should not be
seeing this one again.

-- 
Jens Axboe