linux-kernel - vfs / overlayfs conflict resolution for linux-next

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

Message-ID: <20180712155337.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:53:37 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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 <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> 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).