linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the erofs 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: <20200529015111.GA23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 02:51:11 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the erofs tree

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:45:01AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/erofs/super.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e7cda1ee94f4 ("erofs: code cleanup by removing ifdef macro surrounding")
> 
> from the erofs tree and commit:
> 
>   91a7c5e1d30e ("erofs: convert to use the new mount fs_context api")
> 
> from the vfs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/erofs/super.c
> index 8e46d204a0c2,2c0bad903fa6..000000000000
> --- a/fs/erofs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
> @@@ -408,16 -365,12 +365,9 @@@ static int erofs_fc_fill_super(struct s
>   	sb->s_time_gran = 1;
>   
>   	sb->s_op = &erofs_sops;
>  -
>  -#ifdef CONFIG_EROFS_FS_XATTR
>   	sb->s_xattr = erofs_xattr_handlers;
>  -#endif
>   
> - 	/* set erofs default mount options */
> - 	erofs_default_options(sbi);
> - 
> - 	err = erofs_parse_options(sb, data);
> - 	if (err)
> - 		return err;
> - 
> - 	if (test_opt(sbi, POSIX_ACL))
> + 	if (test_opt(ctx, POSIX_ACL))
>   		sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
>   	else
>   		sb->s_flags &= ~SB_POSIXACL;

FWIW, I would be glad to have that old erofs commit moved over to
erofs tree...  Folks?