From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753490AbcGUBH7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:07:59 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:41797 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752694AbcGUBH6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:07:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:07:56 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jann Horn Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20160721110756.7a905ee8@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 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