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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAH2r5msJhov7j9sAH3YxJUaED3JATsZmraAzQAzV1ZteiGMsCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 21:02:09 -0500
From:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
	"linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with Linus' tree

As noted below, it is easier to remove the obsolete comments and I
just pushed the following trivial patch to cifs-2.6.git for-next to do
that.

https://git.samba.org/?p=sfrench/cifs-2.6.git;a=commit;h=fea17ae8ac1c8c44b2fd1c02ae2e15b847d327d1



On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   a9ae008f407b ("cifs: Switch to generic xattr handlers")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
>   51085a1f913a ("cifs: use C99 syntax for inode_operations initializer")
>
> from the vfs tree.
>
> I fixed it up (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.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> Al: the c99 fixup is not really necessary as the line is commented out
> and you didn't fix the one in the line above ... a better fix might be
> to delete both those lines?
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> index 67f622df0858,586d4eadd49e..000000000000
> --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> @@@ -917,11 -919,13 +917,11 @@@ const struct inode_operations cifs_syml
>         .permission = cifs_permission,
>         /* BB add the following two eventually */
>         /* revalidate: cifs_revalidate,
> -          setattr:    cifs_notify_change, *//* BB do we need notify change */
> +       .setattr = cifs_notify_change, *//* BB do we need notify change */
>  -#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_XATTR
>  -      .setxattr = cifs_setxattr,
>  -      .getxattr = cifs_getxattr,
>  +      .setxattr = generic_setxattr,
>  +      .getxattr = generic_getxattr,
>         .listxattr = cifs_listxattr,
>  -      .removexattr = cifs_removexattr,
>  -#endif
>  +      .removexattr = generic_removexattr,
>   };
>
>   static int cifs_clone_file_range(struct file *src_file, loff_t off,



-- 
Thanks,

Steve