linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:35:24 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the ext4
 tree

Hi Andrew,

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

  fs/ext4/fsync.c

between commit:

  78d962510796 ("ext4: respect the nobarrier mount option in nojournal mode")

from the ext4 tree and commit:

  045d9e206ac0 ("fs/ext4/fsync.c: generic_file_fsync call based on barrier flag")

from the akpm-current tree.

I fixed it up (I used the ext4 tree version) 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