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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1447558 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-21 03:10 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-07-21 03:40 +0200

#1447558 — linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree

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 :-(

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.  You may also want
to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1447576

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web