From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755515AbcESXlj (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2016 19:41:39 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:59793 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755345AbcESXlh (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2016 19:41:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 09:41:35 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Al Viro , Steve French , Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the cifs tree Message-ID: <20160520094135.716833cb@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/cifs/cifsfs.c between commit: 56c1d814aadf ("CIFS: Remove some obsolete comments") from the cifs tree and commit: 51085a1f913a ("cifs: use C99 syntax for inode_operations initializer") from the vfs tree. This was entirely expected. Al, if its easy, you could just drop that patch from the vfs tree. I fixed it up (I just used the version from the cifs 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