From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39224 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726843AbeGLQDr (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:03:47 -0400
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:53:37 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Subject: vfs / overlayfs conflict resolution for linux-next
Message-ID: <20180712155337.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180711021136.GN30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180711022206.12571-1-viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFxc7M9g+jqVnMHAsK350Ty1tQ9AghuJhBug+FPA6=XQrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180711152555.GR30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180711161540.GS30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180712124326.GA19272@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFwyOHvwV4qkmM1kRYQ+4brWbLSHaXE8GPV41u5Sj-AG4Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwyOHvwV4qkmM1kRYQ+4brWbLSHaXE8GPV41u5Sj-AG4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:05:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:43 AM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > A question regarding the customs in such situations - are previous
> > Reviewed-by/Acked-by normally kept across rebases like that?
> 
> Yeah, unless there were big changes, keep the reviewed/acked-by lines.
> 
> Otherwise you'd never be able to handle different people giving
> slightly different feedback about separate issues.

OK...  Miklos, I've pushed #ovl-candidate, with equivalent of the beginning
of your branch.  I'm *not* saying that I've no remaining issues
with your series - this is just how I'd prefer to resolve that group
of conflicts.

Everything past "vfs: simplify dentry_open()" could live on top of that
one, or its equivalent.

I'm going to put #work-open3 into -next, let's figure out what to do with
the conflicts; what I can promise is never-rebased status for #for-ovl
(the beginning of #work-open3 merged into #ovl-candidate).