Re: linux-next: manual merge of the fs-next tree with the mm tree

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 02:26:25PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 01:09:09PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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.

> Do you mean non-trivial conflicts with linux-next? I always attempt a

With other trees in linux-next.

> merge against Linus's tree before sending a pull-request to check and
> annotate any possible conflict, but I have never done that for
> linux-next. I can do that, no problems. Where should I send a
> notification to? linux-next@vger?

If there's anything interesting it can be helpful for me to get a heads
up on the resolution but the main thing (and half the point of having
-next) is to coordinate with other trees that you're colliding with.
You don't specifically need to check, I'll tell you if I notice
something, but OTOH if you know your work is going to be colliding with
someone else's it's good to coordinate.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature