On 1/19/20 7:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:

On 1/19/20 6:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

Hi Jens,

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:34:59 -0700 Jens Axboe [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 12/19/19 6:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  fs/open.c

between commit:

  0a51692d49ec ("open: introduce openat2(2) syscall")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  252270311374 ("fs: make build_open_flags() available internally")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (see at end, plus the merge fix patch below) 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 Stephen, I may just pull in the vfs tree to avoid this conflict.

I looks like Al has rewritten the branch you merged from his tree and
caused various conflicts in my merge of the block tree today.  I used
Al's new versions of the conflicting files.

That's a bummer. I guess I'll have to rebase on top of the new one. Al,
is the new one going to be persistent?

Stephen, I rebased and pushed it out, verified that the io_uring bits
are identical to before. So at least this should be painless for you on
next pull.

-- 
Jens Axboe