linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tomoyo tree with the block 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]

Date:   Tue, 23 Nov 2021 19:06:27 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        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 tomoyo tree with the block tree

On 11/23/21 5:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tomoyo tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/block/loop.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   3793b8e18186 ("block: rename GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN to GENHD_FL_NO_PART")
> 
> from the block tree and commits:
> 
>   dfb2cc3b7f7e ("loop: don't hold lo_mutex during __loop_clr_fd()")
>   51d5ae114da8 ("loop: replace loop_validate_mutex with loop_validate_spinlock")
> 
> from the tomoyo tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (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.

Why does the tomoyo tree have loop commits is the question?

-- 
Jens Axboe