From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752731AbcEBA7r (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2016 20:59:47 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:48208 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752436AbcEBA7q (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2016 20:59:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 10:59:43 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Al Viro , Miklos Szeredi Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree Message-ID: <20160502105943.72202e80@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 5cf3e7fecb43 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()") from the vfs tree. I fixed it up (I used the overlayfs version, since I don't know the locking consequences of teh change from lookup_one_len() to lookup_hash()) 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