* linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the mm-unstable tree
@ 2025-06-16 0:58 Stephen Rothwell
2025-07-29 1:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2025-06-16 0:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Al Viro, Andrew Morton
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List, wangzijie
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
include/linux/proc_fs.h
between commit:
e4cbb84d3ce3 ("proc: use the same treatment to check proc_lseek as ones for proc_read_iter et.al")
from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
5943c611c47c ("procfs: kill ->proc_dops")
from the fs-next 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 include/linux/proc_fs.h
index 703d0c76cc9a,de1d24f19f76..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/proc_fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/proc_fs.h
@@@ -27,7 -27,8 +27,9 @@@ enum
PROC_ENTRY_proc_read_iter = 1U << 1,
PROC_ENTRY_proc_compat_ioctl = 1U << 2,
+ PROC_ENTRY_proc_lseek = 1U << 3,
+
+ PROC_ENTRY_FORCE_LOOKUP = 1U << 7,
};
struct proc_ops {
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the mm-unstable tree
2025-06-16 0:58 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the mm-unstable tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2025-07-29 1:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2025-07-29 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Al Viro, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List,
wangzijie
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1360 bytes --]
Hi all,
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> include/linux/proc_fs.h
>
> between commit:
>
> e4cbb84d3ce3 ("proc: use the same treatment to check proc_lseek as ones for proc_read_iter et.al")
>
> from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
>
> 5943c611c47c ("procfs: kill ->proc_dops")
>
> from the fs-next 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.
>
> diff --cc include/linux/proc_fs.h
> index 703d0c76cc9a,de1d24f19f76..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/proc_fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/proc_fs.h
> @@@ -27,7 -27,8 +27,9 @@@ enum
>
> PROC_ENTRY_proc_read_iter = 1U << 1,
> PROC_ENTRY_proc_compat_ioctl = 1U << 2,
> + PROC_ENTRY_proc_lseek = 1U << 3,
> +
> + PROC_ENTRY_FORCE_LOOKUP = 1U << 7,
> };
>
> struct proc_ops {
This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-07-29 1:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-06-16 0:58 linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the mm-unstable tree Stephen Rothwell
2025-07-29 1:42 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox