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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/proc_fs.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e4cbb84d3ce3 ("proc: use the same treatment to check proc_lseek as ones for proc_read_iter et.al")
> 
> from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
> 
>   5943c611c47c ("procfs: kill ->proc_dops")
> 
> from the fs-next tree.
> 
> 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.
> 
> diff --cc include/linux/proc_fs.h
> index 703d0c76cc9a,de1d24f19f76..000000000000
> --- a/include/linux/proc_fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/proc_fs.h
> @@@ -27,7 -27,8 +27,9 @@@ enum 
>   
>   	PROC_ENTRY_proc_read_iter	= 1U << 1,
>   	PROC_ENTRY_proc_compat_ioctl	= 1U << 2,
>  +	PROC_ENTRY_proc_lseek		= 1U << 3,
> + 
> + 	PROC_ENTRY_FORCE_LOOKUP		= 1U << 7,
>   };
>   
>   struct proc_ops {

This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Attachment: pgpKTMktRzHzV.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature