linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna 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]

Message-ID: <20200205232020.GY23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 5 Feb 2020 23:20:20 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...il.com>,
        NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the nfs-anna tree

On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 10:48:56PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 09:25:12AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/nfs/dir.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   227823d2074d ("nfs: optimise readdir cache page invalidation")
> > 
> > from the nfs-anna tree and commit:
> > 
> >   ef3af2d44331 ("nfs: optimise readdir cache page invalidation")
> > 
> > from the vfs tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I used the nfs-anna tree 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.
> 
> Umm...  OK, I'll redo that merge; FWIW, the only reason I pull that
> branch in the first place is that bunch of fixups needed to accomodate
> it for work.fs_parse changes.

Done - #merge.nfs-fs_parse and #for-next regenerated and force-pushed