Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-187540-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <8cc049e2-157a-4b25-af00-e706c0071e64@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 07:04:44 -0600
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
 Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
References: <20240523095035.11a94157@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <20240523095035.11a94157@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 5/22/24 5:50 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/blk-core.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ac2b6f9dee8f ("bdev: move ->bd_has_subit_bio to ->__bd_flags")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   9a42891c35d5 ("block: fix lost bio for plug enabled bio based device")
> 
> 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.
> 

Thanks Stephen, looks fine. I'll mention it when sending in the rest
for 6.10-rc1.

-- 
Jens Axboe