From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:32:45 +1000 Message-ID: <20160725163245.2f8fad4d@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20160614150737.015362de@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:55684 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750855AbcGYGcs (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 02:32:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160614150737.015362de@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Greg KH , Jens Axboe Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Simmons , Mike Christie , Linus Hi all, On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:07:37 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c > > between commit: > > 95fe6c1a209e ("block, fs, mm, drivers: use bio set/get op accessors") > > from the block tree and commit: > > 67b1a24e883c ("staging: lustre: llite: remove lloop device") > > from the staging tree. > > I fixed it up (I removed the file) 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. Since Linus has merged the staging tree, this file will need to be removed when the block tree is merged into Linus' tree. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell