From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2A6C4361B for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B7622258 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728104AbgLOJcm (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 04:32:42 -0500 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:55771 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727998AbgLOJc1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2020 04:32:27 -0500 Received: from ip5f5af0a0.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([95.90.240.160] helo=wittgenstein) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kp6gH-0000jT-3T; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 09:31:41 +0000 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:31:40 +0100 From: Christian Brauner To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Some fixes for v5.11 Message-ID: <20201215093140.uin7tveoa6hg3ulb@wittgenstein> References: <20201214132745.3323776-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 04:45:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:27 AM Christian Brauner > wrote: > > > > /* Conflicts */ > > At the time of creating this PR no merge conflicts were reported from > > linux-next and no merge conflict with 2c85ebc57b3e ("Linux 5.10") when > > pulling the tag. > > Really? It conflicted with your own time namespace fixes.. Was one or > the other not in linux-next? Oh sorry, I guess you didn't see that. The simple time namespace fixes didn't make it into -next because I missed to merge them into my for-next branch when I took them. I did mention it in the time-namespace-v5.11 pull-request in the /* Testing */ section but apparently this wasn't prominent enough. "Please note that I missed to merge these fixes into my for-next branch and so linux-next has not contained the commits in this pr. I'm still sending this pr because these are fairly trivial bugfixes and have seen vetting from multiple people. I have also now merged this tag into my for-next branch so these commits will show up in linux-next soon. If you feel more comfortable with this sitting in linux-next for a while please just ignore this pr and I'll resend after rc1 has been released." > > Not that the conflicts were big or bad (free_time_ns() prototype > changed right next to timens_on_fork() prototype), I'm just surprised > you saw no conflicts.. Hm, I did pull linux-next 20201214 and then did a pull from my tag. And as usual I always do a test-pull based on v5.* releaste tag and they didn't show any merge conflicts. > > It may be that Stephen didn't even bother reporting them as trivial. No, this was definitely my fault. I'll try to make sure this won't repeat. Thanks for still pulling. Christian