From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: smtp.codeaurora.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="kKhCu2fc" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 3467A601D2 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kroah.com Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932397AbeFFJLN (ORCPT + 25 others); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 05:11:13 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:59633 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932260AbeFFJLL (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 05:11:11 -0400 X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Proxy: X-ME-Sender: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 11:10:47 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with Linus' tree Message-ID: <20180606091046.GA28264@kroah.com> References: <20180606190858.7d4c27ac@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180606190858.7d4c27ac@canb.auug.org.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 07:08:58PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/staging/ncpfs/dir.c > > between commit: > > 1c5fedbb508f ("ncp_lookup(): use d_splice_alias()") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > bd32895c750b ("staging: ncpfs: delete it") > > from the staging tree. > > I fixed it up (the latter removed the file, so I did that) 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. Thanks, I figured this would show up, not a problem, the file should be just removed. greg k-h