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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:57:18 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        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 1/19/20 7:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/19/20 6:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:34:59 -0700 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/19/19 6:36 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I looks like Al has rewritten the branch you merged from his tree and
>> caused various conflicts in my merge of the block tree today.  I used
>> Al's new versions of the conflicting files.
> 
> That's a bummer. I guess I'll have to rebase on top of the new one. Al,
> is the new one going to be persistent?

Stephen, I rebased and pushed it out, verified that the io_uring bits
are identical to before. So at least this should be painless for you on
next pull.

-- 
Jens Axboe