linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the vfs 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: <20161212103817.15e09cc0@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:38:17 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the vfs tree

Hi Miklos,

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

  fs/read_write.c

between commit:

  a76b5b04375f ("fs: try to clone files first in vfs_copy_file_range")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  b2368d2bb4a5 ("vfs: check file types in vfs_copy_file_range()")

from the vfs-miklos tree.

I fixed it up (I used the vfs 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.

Darrick, commit a76b5b04375f has no Signed-off-by from you as committer :-(

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell