Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1195660 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2015-07-30 03:30 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> - 2015-07-30 03:40 +0200
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2015-07-30 04:20 +0200

#1195660 — linux-next: manual merge of the nfsd tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in:

  fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c

between commit:

  bdcc2cd14e4e ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  0183ae17c741 ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")

from the nfsd tree.

The only difference here is that _nfs42_proc_llseek is static in the
former, so I used that.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1195664

Hi Stephen,

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   bdcc2cd14e4e ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
>   0183ae17c741 ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
>
> from the nfsd tree.
>
> The only difference here is that _nfs42_proc_llseek is static in the
> former, so I used that.
>

Yes, I snuck that declaration into the patch since it was obvious that
we would never want to export _nfs42_proc_llseek(), and because
"sparse" complained. Apologies if that caused a conflict...

Cheers
  Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1195685

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 09:35:11PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nfsd tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   fs/nfs/nfs42proc.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   bdcc2cd14e4e ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
> >
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> >
> >   0183ae17c741 ("NFSv4.2: handle NFS-specific llseek errors")
> >
> > from the nfsd tree.
> >
> > The only difference here is that _nfs42_proc_llseek is static in the
> > former, so I used that.

Whoops, thanks, I shouldn't have even had that one in my tree....

> Yes, I snuck that declaration into the patch since it was obvious that
> we would never want to export _nfs42_proc_llseek(), and because
> "sparse" complained. Apologies if that caused a conflict...

I actually noticed that, then noticed a bunch of other stuff there had
the same problem, then started to make a patch to fix all those in one
fell swoop, then decided I was being annoying and dropped it.

Um.

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web