Skip to contentSkip to conversation

linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the origin tree

PATCH Mark Brown 2 participants 3 messages Jun 16

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore

Mark Brown

author maintainer
#0 lore raw

Hi all,

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

io_uring/net.c

between commit:

9b40ba14edcdf ("Merge tag 'for-7.2/io_uring-20260615' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux")

from the origin tree and commit:

c59e546eda5aa ("Merge branch 'for-7.2/io_uring' into for-next")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (see 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.

io_uring/net.c +0 -0
diff --combined io_uring/net.c
index 00a7df803b99b,fd51dcaae8ad8..0000000000000
@@@ -1885,7 -1886,7 +1885,7 @@@ out
   * which in turn end up in mnt_want_write() which will grab the fs
   * percpu start write sem. This can trigger a lockdep warning.
   */
 -static int io_bind_file_create(struct sockaddr_storage *addr, int addr_len)
 +static int io_bind_file_create(const struct sockaddr_storage *addr, int addr_len)
  {
  	const struct sockaddr_un *sun;
  
maintainer
#1 lore raw
Quoted 14 lines · Mark Brown

Hi all,

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

io_uring/net.c

between commit:

9b40ba14edcdf ("Merge tag 'for-7.2/io_uring-20260615' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux")

from the origin tree and commit:

c59e546eda5aa ("Merge branch 'for-7.2/io_uring' into for-next")

Quoted 8 lines

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (see 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.

I updated my for-next a few hours ago, I think you're using an older one. Regardless, it's fine.

Signature · 1 line
Jens Axboe
author maintainer
#2 lore raw
Quoted 7 lines · Jens Axboe
Quoted 2 lines · Mark Brown

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial

I updated my for-next a few hours ago, I think you're using an older one. Regardless, it's fine.

Great, thanks. I mostly do a big block of fetches before starting the merge (sometimes I update more through the day) rather than fetching immediately before each merge, and the notification mails are often delayed a bit compared to when I actually did the merge.