Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfsd tree

[Christian Brauner]

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 09:56:14AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   fed41678532c ("nfsd: don't provide pre/post-op attrs if fh_getattr fails")
> 
> from the nfsd tree and commit:
> 
>   1a6f4cbffdf5 ("nfsd: ensure we use ctime_peek to grab the inode->i_ctime")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the version from the nsfd tree - which
> removed the code modified by the latter) 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'll drop Jeff's series from vfs.all since he's about to send a new
version anyway. Thanks!