From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6968D3D564B; Thu, 5 Mar 2026 17:34:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772732045; cv=none; b=jOQ5CDON5sJf/EVpKwidrDT9OROtRko4CHg9jeM1+CzB425ClZP9g84GFkn3y6/F8Kp7VQpHM+7GGoECsSdp2YXVzFLI9L0ZSgciQaNmm6EPjXDqXClq6M9buwuudY6BeDAIofjUaDXjFvroksUerGPTuJqIxVCc6FThuE1kmyw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772732045; c=relaxed/simple; bh=thHauZ87dWeEPOcP6HHlo642GNpvIkj16akCy9OqYP0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nmDNHlMS1Vfvo3Q95wFpECpjl6urcNLXQ78+8CeWcqFOylvPeEOu+jLAGYUmcV5+FBVgVw2po+G0zTRJsI8V1P7J8oGnsMlcwurhoAHHTXj2kr4HlR4jvZPuqtBxRLOnWVJuM856nP27n8lQHrtVNiveC0D0jH1l+uwpgNBvjek= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=G2ELhZcu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="G2ELhZcu" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AED15C116C6; Thu, 5 Mar 2026 17:34:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1772732045; bh=thHauZ87dWeEPOcP6HHlo642GNpvIkj16akCy9OqYP0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=G2ELhZcuhfcdlCamKUSKKGlAp5F6+QXcqA44bdHPR7WZGAkVn5l2eI006OvHow30v 96vLFw30CCltZEmduaehmMbZeBe4dpy0J5sNjUKFLY3f/mc0vylDf/go6a3BooqX2e tRjcB/mIUWDKP/eXT+EOm2yGVSXZT7y8QibDQ2GmBod7NOwUjtY8x8eZ4rSNX064V7 FwAYRBd8dKRuvegoJliHSAaB9tD3+JdaKDItuxFZ12ZkWPrnmWIORZy0kHI/WVKlzT eL/wQlsZh9ngEgduu7kh1V3A5xv7cnhZkHcP7SiqvnYG4wPsWPzb+JEOu0X8ah8Gni IoB5xKEpxda/A== Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2026 10:34:02 -0700 From: Keith Busch To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Mark Brown , Jens Axboe , Christian Brauner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs-brauner tree Message-ID: References: <20260305145428.GA17884@lst.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260305145428.GA17884@lst.de> On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 03:54:28PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 01:44:28PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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. > > > > I don't have a huge degree of confidence in this merge as the block > > change was quite large and the code is entirely unfamiliar to me. > > I'm familiar with the code and looking at this I have a hard time > understanding the merge. I think we need to get both of these changes > into the same branch somehow to properly audit and test it. Yeah, one of us should have to rebase to the other. Since mine is just a single patch on the one colliding file, I think it easiest if I just rebase my data alignment updates to the vfs integrity branch, then send upstream through there. Let me know if there's an alternate preference.