From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29A8E17BA7; Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726443729; cv=none; b=PNFwvjl9Ucykp2/9pz1wQGtnDlgNvU6n09p5V4uqtLlEgBtzmRlnt2dOJ0rvFvw/1t6qv/yBtjV063nbiD7jTgvRlw8yCP0kl8jh9y8OX5EY1T+M3irjXDVBt910S4B0YrbgPD+IZ/G91BWn96skjVsZVD93cuTyYt4a7hj2SFA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726443729; c=relaxed/simple; bh=R0GPPeKHAbFbXFW+ljpOdYlAFUC/6BJEokBZh4E9gB0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qw7Ep/I+nkmX3+ba83OeGy76QDwuO/5RDBpcV4yDiYOToyTyoU6sVwnsPVci8g0SXbmEheKzV8nE/t1AsJR4/ThbIRpblCuCk2bAFk+M+pKyhAR8hXj1ceNPZP+zLwsCzO2mWYO0x/EOAQaKgnHu6YcFqHsYOfNPzPrJYf/XiPU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b=rh/93whM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=150.107.74.76 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=canb.auug.org.au Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b="rh/93whM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1726443723; bh=N62nmdW/mIjLgwLjyQ9RXaf/g2kvV724xrfZkUHciBw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rh/93whMBR8iPEyWGJzyBu9wqjXpsq7y3VA4+hODh1AIJrS+Hd5MoNa1QcLFQy0kX 7CBe7B2O7nPi3pHGSK8CJ44D7vNczODVnzWFcGCllqHwHceUpz3OkDhw1bhxoRmLce QwBgfRakRnzEfXYl4xykZxDRz9GlucoAZVQ6a8oW09D4VlaPYuBJTq0lZu5ueCn6TR XH4xdt5JG2/TjovRdm8T39h6DS6WX4NX00kQIh5MyvNWnVwOL8IWvHAIMhQw9sSxNt b2+W6U0kxyaK+XUJe25sDKtF1xu/dwkOgQh0alaoglDlruoHAxRMQwSWcAanTOXQO/ /QacaJEjSSc0g== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4X6Phn4Xw7z4x8H; Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:42:01 +1000 (AEST) Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:42:01 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Christian Brauner , Al Viro Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrii Nakryiko , Aleksa Sarai , bpf , Networking , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Next Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the vfs-brauner tree Message-ID: <20240916094201.212c3b23@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20240814105629.0ad9631b@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20240814105629.0ad9631b@canb.auug.org.au> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/Ed2Nn8F8WPVJvnATdGlcyLf"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 --Sig_/Ed2Nn8F8WPVJvnATdGlcyLf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 10:56:29 +1000 Stephen Rothwell = wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in: >=20 > fs/coda/inode.c >=20 > between commit: >=20 > 626c2be9822d ("coda: use param->file for FSCONFIG_SET_FD") >=20 > from the vfs-brauner tree and commit: >=20 > 1da91ea87aef ("introduce fd_file(), convert all accessors to it.") >=20 > from the bpf-next tree. >=20 > I fixed it up (the former removed the code modified by the latter, so I > used the former) 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. This is now a conflict between the vfs tree and the vfs-branuer tree. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell --Sig_/Ed2Nn8F8WPVJvnATdGlcyLf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEENIC96giZ81tWdLgKAVBC80lX0GwFAmbncMkACgkQAVBC80lX 0GwuvQf/dvsPxheb2d2OlHJSqWC9TwnVGKJmNFVej4FdL3DNp08Ok6+Yj29PsP/2 vnSGMQFxpZVEOSXnlSl5Yhk5UksSc91AWpdO6358xekh2vG2GvltByCc3JdkaCNn 1jIDsvIXEkeRyKIT7XR3yrLvwe+yOsIcY7Q36/jjp8ndIl/Uo4ExSZuYGFRXPARh cUVLI0ROJGGWGr68WUoggHcEu1WaeekyQnpelYHTtP0p6m7MREBdDvLKfPiSfOMz Xoi5bWYcoJ2Hz+N7w6VZU9SxRFIpRVgb/BBkxQ7vMGOkHVXF139N4ZZoAA6z1rP1 M0OZiYi0PHNlNA2x6/hWjW/s7eSM/w== =f/Ds -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Ed2Nn8F8WPVJvnATdGlcyLf--