linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the btrfs 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:59:45 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the btrfs tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/btrfs/ioctl.c

between commit:

  2911da32d543 ("btrfs: use btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock inode lock helpers")

from the btrfs tree and commit:

  d9b32b140987 ("btrfs: convert to fileattr")

from the vfs tree.

I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree version (which removed inode_lock()
in various places) 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