[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: linux-next: vfs merge failure

To: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: linux-next: vfs merge failure
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:55:21 +1100
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <haveblue@xxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080326052335.GO10722@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20080326160651.7c1b10ae.sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080326052335.GO10722@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 05:23:35AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 04:06:51PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Al, Dave,
> > 
> > In merging your vfs tree today, I get a conflict between commit
> > 9e57c9b50551a21e056fea654b3aac5db7c33ec9 ("[PATCH] r/o bind mounts:
> > elevate write count for ioctls()") and commit
> > c657925dc0057ed2ec0db845a1a4f56651adfe39 ("[XFS] The forward declarations
> > for the xfs_ioctl() helpers and the") in the xfs tree.  Basically the
> > whole xfs_ioctl function has been moved by the latter commit while Dave's
> > patch modifies it slightly.
> > 
> > I have fixed it up for today and am not really sure what we can do about
> > it (hopefully git-rerere will fix it for me from now on, so I can carry
> > it, but it will conflict when merged into Linus' tree).
> *shrug*
> I'll probably cherry-pick XFS changeset in question, if it's self-contained
> enough, and put it in front of ro-bind series.  Ought to resolve the
> conflict and I have no hestitation about reordering/rebasing.

That's probably easiest - the XFS change is a trivial cleanup and is
self contained. The xfs_ioctl() function itself doesn't change, it's
just been moved to avoid needing 7 or 8 forward declarations....


Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>