From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B1C7CA0 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:36:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F7D8F804B for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id r2dT6wgcz4yySNl1 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:35:58 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20160721013558.GO16044@dastard> References: <20160721110756.7a905ee8@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160721110756.7a905ee8@canb.auug.org.au> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jann Horn , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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 _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs