linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the staging 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2018 01:07:05 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Cc:     Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
        Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the staging tree

Hi Chao,

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:09:13 +0800 Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Xiang has submitted several patches as below to fix compiling error on -next
> tree, could you consider to merge those temporary fixes into -next after merging
> staging-next's updates, and reenable CONFIG_EROFS_FS for further integrity
> compiling and test?
> 
> staging: erofs: fix superblock/inode flags (MS_RDONLY -> SB_RDONLY, S_NOATIME)
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000282.html
> 
> staging: erofs: remove RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_{ENTRY, SHIFT}
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000283.html
> 
> staging: erofs: update .mount and .remount_sb
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-erofs/2018-July/000285.html

OK, I will apply those tomorrow (actually later today :-)) and and stop
disabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS.

> BTW, for this condition that erofs was not covered by some common vfs
> stuff changes in other one's tree, who should take care of those
> missing fixes during coming next merge window?

It might be easiest for Greg to add the disabling CONFIG_EROFS_FS patch
to the staging tree itself for his first pull request during the merge
window and then send a second pull request (after the vfs and maybe the
Xarray stuff has been merged by Linus) with these patches followed by a
revert of the disabling patch.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped