Re: vfs / overlayfs conflict resolution for linux-next

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 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).

... and now it even builds.  Said that, I would really like to hear something
from you - I can duplicate the entire overlayfs-next and merge it into
my #for-next and ask Steven to use that instead of your tree, but I very
much dislike going over your head like that.

I realize that you'd been away for a while and probably are digging yourself
from under the piles of mail, but it's getting late in the cycle and I want
to get #for-next into reasonably sane shape.  Please, look through that
thing and respond.