Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Miklos,
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:16:56 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-miklos tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   fs/read_write.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   97e147358bea ("vfs: wrap write f_ops with file_{start,end}_write()")
>>
>> from the overlayfs tree and various duplicated patches between v4.10-rc1
>> and the vfs-miklos tree.
>>
>> Please clean up the vfs-miklos tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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.
>>
>> I then got this build failure from my arm multi_v7_defconfig build:
>>
>> In file included from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/seq_file.h:10:0,
>>                  from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/consumer.h:17,
>>                  from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h:21,
>>                  from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/device.h:24,
>>                  from /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/dma-mapping.h:6,
>>                  from /home/sfr/next/next/arch/arm/kernel/asm-offsets.c:16:
>> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:2566:19: error: redefinition of 'do_clone
>> _file_range'
>>  static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
>>                    ^
>> /home/sfr/next/next/include/linux/fs.h:1743:19: note: previous definition of 'do_clone_file_range' was here
>>  static inline int do_clone_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
>>                    ^
>>
>> so I decided to just drop the vfs-miklos tree for today.
>
> This mess is still there ...

Sorry, I removed the conflicting content from that tree.

Thanks,
Miklos