linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the btrfs-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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200109091445.48b9ec2f@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jan 2020 09:14:45 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the btrfs-fixes
 tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/btrfs/inode.c

between commit:

  045d3967b692 ("btrfs: rework arguments of btrfs_unlink_subvol")

from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:

  f8b3030e0807 ("btrfs: rework arguments of btrfs_unlink_subvol")

from the btrfs tree.

I fixed it up (just different version of the same patch - I used the
former) 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