linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180530074012.393b74b1@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 30 May 2018 07:40:12 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree

Hi Jens,

On Tue, 29 May 2018 08:22:43 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 5/29/18 2:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Meh.  Do we really need these switch to octal patches to start
> > with?  I mean, I personally prefer octal, but just switching around
> > in random code that isn't otherwise changed creates nothing but churn.  
> 
> This is exactly why I hesitated doing it, I knew it would end up
> with conflicts. The main reason was to get rid of the inconsistency,
> since we had a fair mix of octal and symbolic names.

But the conflicts are all trivial ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped