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

Message-ID: <20200501102825.431f9cac@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 10:28:25 +1000
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>,
        Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.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/tree-log.c

between commit:

  f135cea30de5 ("btrfs: fix partial loss of prealloc extent past i_size after fsync")

from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:

  e94d318f12cd ("btrfs: fix partial loss of prealloc extent past i_size after fsync")

from the btrfs tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter) 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