linux-next: manual merge of the efi tree with the efi-fixes tree

Message ID 20231211151303.1286eda5@canb.auug.org.au
State New
Headers
Series linux-next: manual merge of the efi tree with the efi-fixes tree |

Commit Message

Stephen Rothwell Dec. 11, 2023, 4:13 a.m. UTC
  Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the efi tree got a conflict in:

  fs/efivarfs/super.c

between commits:

  0b6d38bdd6f8 ("efivarfs: Free s_fs_info on unmount")
  ab5c4251a009 ("efivarfs: Move efivarfs list into superblock s_fs_info")

from the efi-fixes tree and commit:

  b501d5b36f58 ("efivarfs: automatically update super block flag")

from the efi 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.
  

Comments

Stephen Rothwell Dec. 11, 2023, 4:39 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi all,

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:13:03 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the efi tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/efivarfs/super.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   0b6d38bdd6f8 ("efivarfs: Free s_fs_info on unmount")
>   ab5c4251a009 ("efivarfs: Move efivarfs list into superblock s_fs_info")
> 
> from the efi-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   b501d5b36f58 ("efivarfs: automatically update super block flag")
> 
> from the efi 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.

Actually the below is needed. ("info" is not a great name for, even a
static, global variable.  And maybe what I have called "einfo" could be
"sfi" like in efivarfs_kill_sb() ...)
  
Ard Biesheuvel Dec. 11, 2023, 9:22 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 05:39, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:13:03 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the efi tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   fs/efivarfs/super.c
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> >   0b6d38bdd6f8 ("efivarfs: Free s_fs_info on unmount")
> >   ab5c4251a009 ("efivarfs: Move efivarfs list into superblock s_fs_info")
> >
> > from the efi-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> >   b501d5b36f58 ("efivarfs: automatically update super block flag")
> >
> > from the efi 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.
>
> Actually the below is needed. ("info" is not a great name for, even a
> static, global variable.  And maybe what I have called "einfo" could be
> "sfi" like in efivarfs_kill_sb() ...)

Apologies, I should have spotted this myself.

I'll fix this up and sync up the branches so any conflicts are
resolved before they reach you.
  

Patch

diff --cc fs/efivarfs/super.c
index d7d9a3e189a0,42eff5ac7ab4..000000000000
--- a/fs/efivarfs/super.c