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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <f6ff3aa5-e08b-8b25-454a-9aa51b8b5c37@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:34:59 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        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>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree

On 12/19/19 6:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/open.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0a51692d49ec ("open: introduce openat2(2) syscall")
> 
> from the vfs tree and commit:
> 
>   252270311374 ("fs: make build_open_flags() available internally")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see at end, plus the merge fix patch below) 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.

Thanks Stephen, I may just pull in the vfs tree to avoid this conflict.

-- 
Jens Axboe