linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the ext4 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: <20160517031631.GT7799@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 23:16:31 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the ext4 tree

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:23:55AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   fs/ext4/ext4.h
>   fs/ext4/indirect.c
>   fs/ext4/inode.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   914f82a32d02 ("ext4: refactor direct IO code")
> 
> from the ext4 tree and commit:
> 
>   c8b8e32d700f ("direct-io: eliminate the offset argument to ->direct_IO")
> 
> from the vfs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (hopefully - see below) and can carry the fix as
> necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
> non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
> when your tree is submitted for merging.

Thanks for the heads up.  My merge resolution was backwards from yours
(because I merged the ext4 tree into vfs tree while you apparently did
the reverse), and this resolution was complex enough that I'm waiting
for you to publish next-20160517 to make sure you came up with the
same final result of fs/ext4/inode.c (minus the f2fs's ext4 crypto
merge, which I think Jaeguk is going to be dropping from his tree, but
I don't know if that will have happened by next-20160517).

I'm kicking off a set of tests to make sure there aren't problems with
the resulting merge going beyond the purely syntactic merge
resolution.

Cheers,

							- Ted