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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:31:40 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree Hi Jens, Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: fs/logfs/dev_bdev.c between commit: 6b4fbde3b979 ("logfs: remove from tree") from the vfs tree and commitis: 3a83f4677539 ("block: bio: pass bvec table to bio_init()") 739a9975468c ("fs: logfs: convert to bio_add_page() in sync_request()") d4f98a89f9cd ("fs: logfs: use bio_add_page() in __bdev_writeseg()") c12484367865 ("fs: logfs: use bio_add_page() in do_erase()") 05aea81b4bc9 ("fs: logfs: remove unnecesary check") from the block tree. I fixed it up (I removed the file) 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. Al: that vfs tree commit has a bad email address for Christoph in it :-( -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists