linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the fscache 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: <20210921135421.13eac778@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:54:21 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     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 folio tree with the fscache tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c

between commit:

  405f4ff7f8a3 ("fscache: Remove the old I/O API")

from the fscache tree and commit:

  2e96a1a81b3f ("mm/filemap: Convert page wait queues to be folios")

from the folio tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the file, so I did that) 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