linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nilfs 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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:41:25 +0900 (JST)
From:	Ryusuke Konishi <ryusuke@...g.net>
To:	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nilfs tree

Hi,
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:11:14 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflicts in
> fs/nilfs2/super.c between commits from the nilfs tree and similar commits
> from the vfs tree.
> 
> The vfs and nilfs trees have different versions of the following patches:
> 
> nilfs2: get rid of sget use for checking if current mount is present
> nilfs2: simplify remaining sget() use
> nilfs2: correct exclusion control in nilfs_remount function
> 
> And the vfs tree has further commits that affect this files as well.
> 
> For now, I have used the vfs tree version.  Please sort this out.

I've confirmed that the patch series is applied to the vfs tree.

To avoid the conflict, I will remove them from my nilfs2 tree.

Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi
--
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/