linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the block 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]

Message-ID: <20160715143327.219961ef@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:33:27 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
	Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the ext4 tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/ext4/crypto.c

between commit:

  a7550b30ab70 ("ext4 crypto: migrate into vfs's crypto engine")

from the ext4 tree and commits:

  4e49ea4a3d27 ("block/fs/drivers: remove rw argument from submit_bio")
  60a40096a3b2 ("ext4: use bio op helprs in ext4 crypto code")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the ext4 tree removed the file, so I did that) 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