linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the btrfs-kdave 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: <20170613131517.42918886@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2017 13:15:17 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the btrfs-kdave
 tree

Hi Jens,

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

  fs/btrfs/compression.c

between commit:

  c1045c6859c1 ("btrfs: opencode trivial compressed_bio_alloc, simplify error handling")

from the btrfs-kdave tree and commit:

  4e4cbee93d56 ("block: switch bios to blk_status_t")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed one of the hunks fo code updated by the
latter) 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