linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the xfs 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20220118093041.7d964a13@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:30:41 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        David Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.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 xfs tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c

between commit:

  983d8e60f508 ("xfs: map unwritten blocks in XFS_IOC_{ALLOC,FREE}SP just like fallocate")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  4d1b97f9ce7c ("xfs: kill the XFS_IOC_{ALLOC,FREE}SP* ioctls")

from the xfs tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the code modified by the former, 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