linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the configfs 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: <20190912234412.38998b12@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 23:44:12 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, 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>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the configfs tree with the vfs-fixes
 tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/configfs/symlink.c

between commit:

  e272d4fb74d6 ("configfs: fix a deadlock in configfs_symlink()")

from the vfs-fixes tree and commit:

  351e5d869e5a ("configfs: fix a deadlock in configfs_symlink()")

from the configfs tree.

These are slightly different version of the same fix.

I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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