From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934615AbZKYJE4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:04:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934551AbZKYJEy (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:04:54 -0500 Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:58747 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934493AbZKYJEu (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:04:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:04:44 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Jan Kara Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Steve French , Jeff Layton , Eric Paris Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ext3 tree with the cifs tree Message-Id: <20091125200444.cab8f918.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20091125085006.GB549@quack.suse.cz> References: <20091125140626.2b71fb0a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091125085006.GB549@quack.suse.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.3; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Wed__25_Nov_2009_20_04_44_+1100_XBPeMR4555t/tbnD" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --Signature=_Wed__25_Nov_2009_20_04_44_+1100_XBPeMR4555t/tbnD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jan, On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:50:06 +0100 Jan Kara wrote: > > On Wed 25-11-09 14:06:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the ext3 tree got a conflict in fs/cifs/dir= .c > > between commit cea62343956c24452700c06cf028b72414c58a74 ("[CIFS] > > Duplicate data on appending to some Samba servers") from the cifs tree > > and commit 618903228b94b67a1d04634a83ea9cdb99c09e37 ("vfs: Implement > > proper O_SYNC semantics") from the ext3 tree. > Thanks for notification and fixup. >=20 > > Just context changes. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix = as > > necessary. > Looking at the code, I don't see an easy way of resolving this by chang= ing > either mine or CIFS tree - I have other patches depending on this and this > patch depending on others and I assume it's similar with CIFS... So I gue= ss > we'll have to live with this conflict. Its not a big issue and even if it hits Linus' tree that way, I think he would not mind. I have just noticed that I get the same conflict between the cifs tree and the fsnotify tree (hi Eric!) which has also included that patch from Christoph. Again, not a big problem. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Wed__25_Nov_2009_20_04_44_+1100_XBPeMR4555t/tbnD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksM8ywACgkQjjKRsyhoI8yntgCfdnY7/Rgu1wRRj0w2HY6Hm8Ht jC4AnRYymCzhEs3oFL1TJhXdtUZz6vOs =N30n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Wed__25_Nov_2009_20_04_44_+1100_XBPeMR4555t/tbnD--