linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:42:44 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 10:53:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/lzo.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ccaa66c8dd27 ("Revert "btrfs: compression: drop kmap/kunmap from lzo"")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   d4088803f511 ("btrfs: subpage: make lzo_compress_pages() compatible")
> 
> from the btrfs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (this may be completely wrong or incomplete :-( - see below)
> 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.

Thanks, it's a bit different that I did as a proposed conflict
resulution and Linus resolved it in a yet another way. I'll refresh my
for-next branch today to minimize the conflict surface.