linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHc6FU5QKTVNos5x2uWZ8oCaMu6CEkqpan_zS6i1U2XqRpWyKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 08:48:32 +0200
From:   Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        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 gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:38 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:12:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I got more conflicts today.
>
> Can we please get that (old, buggy) version of this topic branch
> removed from the gfs2 tree

Done.

Thanks,
Andreas