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

Message-ID: <20160905114707.6da38214@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:47:07 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs-kdave tree with Linus' tree

Hi David,

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

  fs/btrfs/send.c

between commit:

  3dc09ec895f0 ("Btrfs: kill invalid ASSERT() in process_all_refs()")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  8e991cbbea49 ("Btrfs: handle pending renames with recycled inodes properly")

from the btrfs-kdave tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter 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