linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the cifs 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160520094135.716833cb@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 20 May 2016 09:41:35 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the cifs tree

Hi Al,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/cifs/cifsfs.c

between commit:

  56c1d814aadf ("CIFS: Remove some obsolete comments")

from the cifs tree and commit:

  51085a1f913a ("cifs: use C99 syntax for inode_operations initializer")

from the vfs tree.

This was entirely expected.  Al, if its easy, you could just drop that
patch from the vfs tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the version from the cifs tree) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell