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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:30:44 +0000 From: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com> To: "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> CC: "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, "Anna.Schumaker@...app.com" <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nfs tree with Linus' tree On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 11:24 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the nfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c > > between commit: > > 21e31401fc45 ("NFS: Disable READ_PLUS by default") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > 5c3485bb12c9 ("NFSv4.2/pnfs: Don't use READ_PLUS with pNFS yet") > > from the nfs 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. > Thanks Stephen! Yes, the fixes for the client side READ_PLUS code ended up being a little more extensive than hoped for in the last week of the 2.10 cycle, hence the need for a Kconfig option to disable it. Apologies for the extra work it caused you. Cheers Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.myklebust@...merspace.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists