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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:53:37 +0100
From:   Al Viro <>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Stephen Rothwell <>
Subject: vfs / overlayfs conflict resolution for linux-next

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:05:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:43 AM Al Viro <> wrote:
> >
> > A question regarding the customs in such situations - are previous
> > Reviewed-by/Acked-by normally kept across rebases like that?
> Yeah, unless there were big changes, keep the reviewed/acked-by lines.
> Otherwise you'd never be able to handle different people giving
> slightly different feedback about separate issues.

OK...  Miklos, I've pushed #ovl-candidate, with equivalent of the beginning
of your branch.  I'm *not* saying that I've no remaining issues
with your series - this is just how I'd prefer to resolve that group
of conflicts.

Everything past "vfs: simplify dentry_open()" could live on top of that
one, or its equivalent.

I'm going to put #work-open3 into -next, let's figure out what to do with
the conflicts; what I can promise is never-rebased status for #for-ovl
(the beginning of #work-open3 merged into #ovl-candidate).

Powered by blists - more mailing lists