From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:55574 "EHLO ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751099AbeFEA7H (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 20:59:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:59:04 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20180605005904.GY10363@dastard> References: <20180605103403.3e5b2c91@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180605103403.3e5b2c91@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andreas Gruenbacher , Bob Peterson , Christoph Hellwig On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 10:34:03AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the xfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/gfs2/bmap.c > > between commit: > > 628e366df11c ("gfs2: Iomap cleanups and improvements") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 7ee66c03e40a ("iomap: move IOMAP_F_BOUNDARY to gfs2") > > from the xfs tree. > > 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. We should have seen this before the gfs2 tree was merged into Linus' tree. Does that mean the gfs2 tree is not being pulled into the linux-next tree? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com