linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the vfs-fixes 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180514102624.76a4097e@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 10:26:24 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the vfs-fixes tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/namei.c

between commit:

  1e2e547a93a0 ("do d_instantiate/unlock_new_inode combinations safely")

from the vfs-fixes tree and commit:

  ab3835aae642 ("f2fs: call unlock_new_inode() before d_instantiate()")

from the f2fs tree.

I think that the vfs-fixes commit supercedes the f2fs tree one, so I
used that.

I fixed it up (see above) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped