linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the f2fs 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: <047a6e22-2e8a-4c36-bcbc-3108606c58ff@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:47:49 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
CC:     Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the f2fs tree

On 2020/12/3 11:43, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:
> 
>    fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>    fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>    fs/f2fs/super.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    5c0602188dc7 ("f2fs: fix kbytes written stat for multi-device case")
> 
> from the f2fs tree and commits:
> 
>    8446fe9255be ("block: switch partition lookup to use struct block_device")
>    9499ffc75217 ("f2fs: remove a few bd_part checks")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think, see below, fs/f2fs/f2fs.h and fs/f2fs/super.c
> used the versions from the f2fs tree) 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.
> 

The fix looks good to me. :)

Thanks,