From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:35:58 +1000 Message-ID: <20160721013558.GO16044@dastard> References: <20160721110756.7a905ee8@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.143]:58674 "EHLO ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753236AbcGUBgD (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:36:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160721110756.7a905ee8@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jann Horn On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:07:56AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the xfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > > between commit: > > 3e0a39654645 ("xfs: fix type confusion in xfs_ioc_swapext") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 7f1b62457b58 ("xfs: fix type confusion in xfs_ioc_swapext") > > from the xfs tree. > > These are not quite the same patch :-( Yeah, I added comments to explain the code, because it's not obvious why the check was added, and I couldn't find any other examples of such checks in fs/. So, in five years time when I look at that code again, the comment will remind me why it's a bad idea to remove what appears to be an unnecesary check... > I fixed it up (I used the version in the xfs tree) 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. Yup, I planned to let Linus know. Patches in private emails that aren't tagged [PATCH] in the subject line don't get the immediate attention of my mail filters, so I didn't see it immediately. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com