Message ID | 20190712180205.GA5347@magnolia (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] xfs: new features for 5.3 | expand |
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:02 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > The branch merges cleanly against this morning's HEAD and survived an > overnight run of xfstests. The merge was completely straightforward, so > please let me know if you run into anything weird. Hmm. I don't know what you merged against, but it got a (fairly trivial) conflict for me due to 79d08f89bb1b ("block: fix .bi_size overflow") from the block merge (from Tuesday) touching a line next to one changed by a24737359667 ("xfs: simplify xfs_chain_bio") from this pull. So it wasn't an entirely clean merge for me. Was it a complex merge conflict? No. I'm just confused by the "merges cleanly against this morning's HEAD", which makes me wonder what you tried to merge against.. Linus
The pull request you sent on Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:02:05 -0700:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git tags/xfs-5.3-merge-12
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/4ce9d181ebe53abbca5f450b8a2984b8c3a38f26
Thank you!
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:27:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:02 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > The branch merges cleanly against this morning's HEAD and survived an > > overnight run of xfstests. The merge was completely straightforward, so > > please let me know if you run into anything weird. > > Hmm. I don't know what you merged against, but it got a (fairly > trivial) conflict for me due to > > 79d08f89bb1b ("block: fix .bi_size overflow") > > from the block merge (from Tuesday) touching a line next to one changed by > > a24737359667 ("xfs: simplify xfs_chain_bio") > > from this pull. > > So it wasn't an entirely clean merge for me. > > Was it a complex merge conflict? No. I'm just confused by the "merges > cleanly against this morning's HEAD", which makes me wonder what you > tried to merge against.. Doh, it turns out I was merging against the same HEAD as my last two pull requests because I forgot to re-pull. Sorry about that. It's been too long of a week. :/ --D > Linus
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:07 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> wrote: > > Doh, it turns out I was merging against the same HEAD as my last two > pull requests because I forgot to re-pull. Sorry about that. It's been > too long of a week. :/ Heh, no problem, I was just surprised when my merge result didn't match expectations. As mentioned, it wasn't like the conflict was complicated, only unexpected. Linus