linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with Linus' 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]

Message-ID: <20120109021416.GV23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jan 2012 02:14:16 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 12:11:33PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in
> fs/btrfs/super.c between commit 34c80b1d93e6 ("vfs: switch ->show_options
> () to struct dentry *") from Linus' tree and commit 2ddeb2a58b11 ("vfs:
> switch ->show_options() to struct dentry *") from the vfs tree.
> 
> I assume that you sent the correct version to Linus, so I used that.
> Please, if you do change stuff just before sending it to Linus also update
> your for-next branch.
> 
> Then again ... it looks like the vfs tree has other changes to the btrfs
> code so that I need the version from the vfs tree, not Linus' tree ...

btrfs stuff will (hopefully) get picked by Chris.  Until then I've got those
patches in #for-next, rebased on top of what Linus had picked...
--
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/