From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:38:43 +1100 Message-ID: <20170131213843.007ba67a@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20170131111656.3e77663b@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]:47631 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751272AbdAaKjJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:39:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Miklos Szeredi , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel Hi Amir, On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:47:43 +0200 Amir Goldstein wrote: > > That's strange. > overlayfs-next whose head is the for mentioned commit is based on > v4.10-rc6 and has no duplicated patches AFAICS The duplicate patches are between v4.10-rc1 and the vfs-miklos tree and the overlayfs tree includes v4.10-rc1, so there is interactions there. > Please note that my patch moves do_clone_file_range() from line 1743 > to line 2566, > because it needs to use file_start_write(), which is defined in line 2533. > so perhaps the conflict was not resolved correctly? That is probably what happened, but if the vfs-miklos tree is cleaned up, these conflicts will all go away. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell