linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:56:51 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs tree

Hi Al,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got conflicts in fs/cifs/dir.c,
fs/nfs/dir.c, fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c, ipc/mqueue.c, fs/open.c and fs/namei.c
between commits from the nfs tree and commits from the vfs tree.

These were all caused by the rebase of the vfs tree after it had been
merged into the nfs tree.  This is one reason you should not rebase a
published tree (especially so close to the merge window).

I fixed up all the conflicts which meant taking some files from one tree
and some from the other.  Now, unless the nfs tree is rebuilt (and tested
etc) we will have duplicates of a large number of patches in Linus'
tree :-(
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped