On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:49:48AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
>
> between commit:
>
> b2197a36c0ef ("xfs: remove XFS_IFEXTENTS")
>
> from the xfs tree and commit:
>
> 9fefd5db08ce
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
between commit:
b2197a36c0ef ("xfs: remove XFS_IFEXTENTS")
from the xfs tree and commit:
9fefd5db08ce ("xfs: convert to fileattr")
from the vfs tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:22:11PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
>
> between commits:
>
> ceaf603c7024 ("xfs: move the di_projid field to struct xfs_inode")
> 031474c28a3a ("xfs: move the
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c
between commits:
ceaf603c7024 ("xfs: move the di_projid field to struct xfs_inode")
031474c28a3a ("xfs: move the di_extsize field to struct xfs_inode")
b33ce57d3e61 ("xfs: move the di_cowextsize
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:52:47AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [I don't understand why all this new work turned up in the xfs tree
> during the merge window ...]
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/read_write.c
>
> between commits:
>
>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:52:47AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [I don't understand why all this new work turned up in the xfs tree
> during the merge window ...]
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/read_write.c
>
> between commits:
>
>
Hi all,
[I don't understand why all this new work turned up in the xfs tree
during the merge window ...]
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/read_write.c
between commits:
42ec3d4c0218 ("vfs: make remap_file_range functions take and return bytes
completed")
Hi all,
[I don't understand why all this new work turned up in the xfs tree
during the merge window ...]
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/read_write.c
between commits:
42ec3d4c0218 ("vfs: make remap_file_range functions take and return bytes
completed")
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
between commit:
fba3e594ef0a ("xfs: always succeed when deduping zero bytes")
from the xfs tree and commit:
876bec6f9bbf ("vfs: refactor clone/dedupe_file_range common functions")
from the vfs
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
between commit:
fba3e594ef0a ("xfs: always succeed when deduping zero bytes")
from the xfs tree and commit:
876bec6f9bbf ("vfs: refactor clone/dedupe_file_range common functions")
from the vfs
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/xfs/xfs_xattr.c
between commit:
67d8e04e345e ("xfs: invalidate cached acl if set directly via xattr")
from the xfs tree and commit:
64669c648bc0 ("xattr handlers: Pass handler to operations instead of flags")
from
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/xfs/xfs_xattr.c
between commit:
67d8e04e345e ("xfs: invalidate cached acl if set directly via xattr")
from the xfs tree and commit:
64669c648bc0 ("xattr handlers: Pass handler to operations instead of flags")
from
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c between commit 21c3ea18819b ("xfs: unlock i_mutex in
xfs_break_layouts") from the xfs tree and commit 5dd3dc06371a ("VFS:
normal filesystems (and lustre): d_inode() annotations") from the vfs
tree.
I fixed it up
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c between commit 21c3ea18819b (xfs: unlock i_mutex in
xfs_break_layouts) from the xfs tree and commit 5dd3dc06371a (VFS:
normal filesystems (and lustre): d_inode() annotations) from the vfs
tree.
I fixed it up (see
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:57:37AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
> fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c between commit e8e9ad42c1f1 ("xfs: take i_mmap_lock
> on extent manipulation operations") from the xfs tree and commit
> 5dd3dc06371a
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c between commit e8e9ad42c1f1 ("xfs: take i_mmap_lock
on extent manipulation operations") from the xfs tree and commit
5dd3dc06371a ("VFS: normal filesystems (and lustre): d_inode()
annotations") from the vfs tree.
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:57:37AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c between commit e8e9ad42c1f1 (xfs: take i_mmap_lock
on extent manipulation operations) from the xfs tree and commit
5dd3dc06371a (VFS: normal
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c between commit e8e9ad42c1f1 (xfs: take i_mmap_lock
on extent manipulation operations) from the xfs tree and commit
5dd3dc06371a (VFS: normal filesystems (and lustre): d_inode()
annotations) from the vfs tree.
I
18 matches
Mail list logo
