vfs / overlayfs conflict resolution for linux-next

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:05:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:43 AM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > A question regarding the customs in such situations - are previous
> > Reviewed-by/Acked-by normally kept across rebases like that?
> 
> Yeah, unless there were big changes, keep the reviewed/acked-by lines.
> 
> Otherwise you'd never be able to handle different people giving
> slightly different feedback about separate issues.

OK...  Miklos, I've pushed #ovl-candidate, with equivalent of the beginning
of your branch.  I'm *not* saying that I've no remaining issues
with your series - this is just how I'd prefer to resolve that group
of conflicts.

Everything past "vfs: simplify dentry_open()" could live on top of that
one, or its equivalent.

I'm going to put #work-open3 into -next, let's figure out what to do with
the conflicts; what I can promise is never-rebased status for #for-ovl
(the beginning of #work-open3 merged into #ovl-candidate).