Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:31:40 +0100 | From | Christian Brauner <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Some fixes for v5.11 |
| |
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 04:45:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:27 AM Christian Brauner > <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > /* Conflicts */ > > At the time of creating this PR no merge conflicts were reported from > > linux-next and no merge conflict with 2c85ebc57b3e ("Linux 5.10") when > > pulling the tag. > > Really? It conflicted with your own time namespace fixes.. Was one or > the other not in linux-next?
Oh sorry, I guess you didn't see that. The simple time namespace fixes didn't make it into -next because I missed to merge them into my for-next branch when I took them. I did mention it in the time-namespace-v5.11 pull-request in the /* Testing */ section but apparently this wasn't prominent enough.
"Please note that I missed to merge these fixes into my for-next branch and so linux-next has not contained the commits in this pr. I'm still sending this pr because these are fairly trivial bugfixes and have seen vetting from multiple people. I have also now merged this tag into my for-next branch so these commits will show up in linux-next soon. If you feel more comfortable with this sitting in linux-next for a while please just ignore this pr and I'll resend after rc1 has been released."
> > Not that the conflicts were big or bad (free_time_ns() prototype > changed right next to timens_on_fork() prototype), I'm just surprised > you saw no conflicts..
Hm, I did pull linux-next 20201214 and then did a pull from my tag. And as usual I always do a test-pull based on v5.* releaste tag and they didn't show any merge conflicts.
> > It may be that Stephen didn't even bother reporting them as trivial.
No, this was definitely my fault. I'll try to make sure this won't repeat. Thanks for still pulling.
Christian
| |