-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Rothwell <redacted> 
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:27 AM
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>; CIFS <redacted>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <redacted>; Linux Next Mailing List <redacted>; Shyam Prasad <redacted>; Steven French <redacted>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree

Hi all,

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:41:39 +1100 Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got conflicts in:

  fs/cifs/connect.c
  fs/cifs/fscache.c

between commit:

  935b45107a80 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite (untested)")

from the fscache tree and commits:

  9d0245fc6a2e ("cifs: wait for tcon resource_id before getting fscache super")
  c148f8eb032f ("cifs: add server conn_id to fscache client cookie")
  b1f962ba272b ("cifs: avoid use of dstaddr as key for fscache client 
cookie")

from the cifs tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former versions) 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.

These are now conflict between the fscache tree and Linus' tree.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
================================

Hi David,

As we discussed offline, I will test out the fscache rewrite integration in cifs.ko later this week and submit the final patch to linux-cifs mailing list.
As a part of this, I will fix all the conflicts that arise.
Is this okay with you?
I hope this will eliminate the conflicts between the two trees for now?

Regards,
Shyam