linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the ubifs tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:42:44 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the ubifs tree

On 09/02/2009 08:36 AM, ext Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
> fs/ubifs/super.c between commit 887ee17117fd23e962332b353d250ac9e090b20f
> ("UBIFS: remove unneeded call from ubifs_sync_fs") from the ubifs tree
> and commit 0184fca792940a9e4058b2c63b3f334326a4c7af ("writeback: move
> super_block argument to struct writeback_control") from the block tree.
>
> The former removes the code that the latter changes.  I just used the
> version from the ubifs tree.  I can carry this fixup as necessary.

Yeah, I remove the call because it is not needed anymore.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/