linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: merge fixups relative to the vfs 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001181512340.1759@cobra.newdream.net>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:16:39 -0800 (PST)
From:	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc:	"Jörn Engel" <joern@...fs.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: merge fixups relative to the vfs tree

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jörn, Sage,
> 
> Al has now created a "write_inode" branch in the vfs tree that just
> contains the changes that your trees need to be fixed up for.  Al
> promises that this branch will never be rebased.  So the best solution is
> for you both to merge that branch into your respective trees ("git pull
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git
> write_inode") and then apply the patches I sent (assuming that they are
> correct).  If you rebase your trees, you will need to repull the above
> branch, of course.

That works, thanks.  I was planning on just making sure my tree got pulled 
after the vfs tree, but this will work either way.

More generally, I'm not sure I understand how your fixups are supposed to 
be used down the line.  Is whichever tree that caused the conflict to get 
merged second supposed to pick it up in their branch to pull, or are those 
patches being fed to Linus somehow, or does he usually fix up those 
conflicts himself?

Thanks-
sage