linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse 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: <20190830130119.446e7389@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:01:19 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the fuse tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/fuse/inode.c

between commit:

  1458e5e9f99a ("fuse: extract fuse_fill_super_common()")

from the fuse tree and commit:

  2ad9ab0f7429 ("vfs: Convert fuse to use the new mount API")
  48ceb15f98c8 ("vfs: Move the subtype parameter into fuse")

from the vfs tree.

This is too much to work out, so I have effectively reverted the 2 vfs
tree commits.

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