Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the file-locks tree with the fuse tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 11:46:18 +1100

Hi all,

On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 11:26:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the file-locks tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/fuse/file.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   5a8bee63b10f ("fuse: in fuse_flush only wait if someone wants the return code")
> 
> from the fuse tree and commit:
> 
>   5970e15dbcfe ("filelock: move file locking definitions to separate header file")
> 
> from the file-locks 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/fuse/file.c
> index 5a98cf915bd3,1458412f2492..000000000000
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@@ -18,7 -18,7 +18,8 @@@
>   #include <linux/falloc.h>
>   #include <linux/uio.h>
>   #include <linux/fs.h>
>  +#include <linux/file.h>
> + #include <linux/filelock.h>
>   
>   static int fuse_send_open(struct fuse_mount *fm, u64 nodeid,
>   			  unsigned int open_flags, int opcode,

This is now a conflict between the fuse tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell