Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the nfsd tree

[Chuck Lever]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 11:03:34AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/blk-flush.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   bed5a600c6b0 ("block: Revert 615939a2ae73")
> 
> from the nfsd tree and commits:
> 
>   28b241237470 ("blk-flush: fix rq->flush.seq for post-flush requests")
>   b175c86739d3 ("blk-flush: count inflight flush_data requests")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the former, though I wonder if 28b241237470 fixes
> what the revert is trying to work around) 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.

Damn. I forgot bed5a was in my public tree. I haven't sent that out
for review yet. Stephen, please drop bed5a, and I will remove it
from nfsd-next as well.


-- 
Chuck Lever