linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the vfs-fixes 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:   Mon, 14 May 2018 01:36:59 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the vfs-fixes tree

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:26:24AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/f2fs/namei.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   1e2e547a93a0 ("do d_instantiate/unlock_new_inode combinations safely")
> 
> from the vfs-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   ab3835aae642 ("f2fs: call unlock_new_inode() before d_instantiate()")
> 
> from the f2fs tree.
> 
> I think that the vfs-fixes commit supercedes the f2fs tree one, so I
> used that.

Yes, it does.