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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:35:58 +1000 From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Cc: xfs@....sgi.com, linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:07:56AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the xfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > > between commit: > > 3e0a39654645 ("xfs: fix type confusion in xfs_ioc_swapext") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 7f1b62457b58 ("xfs: fix type confusion in xfs_ioc_swapext") > > from the xfs tree. > > These are not quite the same patch :-( Yeah, I added comments to explain the code, because it's not obvious why the check was added, and I couldn't find any other examples of such checks in fs/. So, in five years time when I look at that code again, the comment will remind me why it's a bad idea to remove what appears to be an unnecesary check... > I fixed it up (I used the version in the xfs tree) 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. Yup, I planned to let Linus know. Patches in private emails that aren't tagged [PATCH] in the subject line don't get the immediate attention of my mail filters, so I didn't see it immediately. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists