linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210611111231.7750bb60@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:12:31 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:

  Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
  include/linux/uio.h
  lib/iov_iter.c

between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
of the commits from the gfs2 tree.

I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) 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