From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754034AbcLKXNO (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:13:14 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:39345 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753930AbcLKXNN (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:13:13 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:13:10 +1100 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: <20161212101311.272ed674@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/copy_up.c between commit: 4a756233184d ("Revert "ovl: Warn on copy up if a process has a R/O fd open to the lower file"") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 450630975da9 ("don't open-code file_inode()") from the vfs tree. I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter) 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