linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.13

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: <CAHk-=wgpn570yfA+EM5yZ0T-m0c5jnLcx3WGSu3xR8E4DGvCFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:50:51 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xfs: new code for 5.13

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:06 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, some of our refactoring work collided with Miklos'
> patchset that refactors FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS and FS_IOC_FS[GS]ETXATTR.

Ok, the resolution looked reasonably straightforward to me, and I
ended up with what looks like the same end result you did.

But I only did a visual inspection of our --cc diffs (you seem to use
--patience, which made my initial diff look different) and obviously
verified that it all builds cleanly, I didn't do any actual testing.

So please double-check that everything still looks good,

                 Linus