linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the wberr 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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20170801153230.4ac75584959f3f5391c2341c@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:32:30 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with the wberr tree

On Tue, 01 Aug 2017 07:31:33 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 06:59 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:46 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   include/linux/fs.h
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   9dcc0577f2a4 ("mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits")
> > > 
> > > from the wberr tree and patch:
> > > 
> > >   "mm: remove optimizations based on i_size in mapping writeback waits"
> > > 
> > > from the akpm tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (I just dropped the akpm tree patch) 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.
> > > 
> > 
> > I didn't realize that Andrew was going to pick that one up. I'll drop it
> > from my tree.

Please don't do that.  When a patch turns up in linux-next I'll drop my
copy.  If you then drop your copy, the patch is lost.

> > Thanks!
> 
> Actually, I take it back. Jan had some comments about the commit message
> and I'd like to revise this. Andrew, do you mind dropping this patch
> instead?

Yes, do that ;)