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

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 10:19:59 +0800 Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 4/7/26 12:25 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 14:13:49 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >>   fs/ocfs2/dir.c
> >>
> >> between commits:
> >>
> >>   bdff37e327275 ("ocfs2: validate dx_root extent list fields during block read")
> >>   28c33de101792 ("ocfs2: remove empty extent list check in ocfs2_dx_dir_lookup_rec()")
> >>
> >> from the mm-nonmm-unstable tree and commit:
> >>
> >>   0b2600f81cefc ("treewide: change inode->i_ino from unsigned long to u64")
> >>
> >> from the fs-next tree.
> > 
> > Thanks.  That's a nasty-looking conflict due to the applying order.  The
> > 0b2600f81cefc change is actually small, below.
> > 
> > Hopefully Linus can figure it out ;)
> > 
> > 
> Should I resend the series base on the latest linux-next?

It should be OK - the resolution is straightforward and Linus is good at
these things.