linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the xfs 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20160721110756.7a905ee8@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:07:56 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	David Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, xfs@....sgi.com
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the xfs tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c

between commit:

  3e0a39654645 ("xfs: fix type confusion in xfs_ioc_swapext")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  7f1b62457b58 ("xfs: fix type confusion in xfs_ioc_swapext")

from the xfs tree.

These are not quite the same patch :-(

I fixed it up (I used the version in the xfs 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