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

[Carlos Maiolino]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 02:11:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

Ok, that sounds fair Mark. I honestly didn't expect this patch to
collide with Andrew's tree. The submitter sent both of them initially,
Andrew picked one, and I asked the submitter to send the second one
individually for me to pick up. But I didn't expect it to cause a
collision. Next time it happens I'll try to keep an eye on the ending
result.