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]
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