linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the cifs 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220120094328.1e7015cb@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:43:28 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.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>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with the fscache tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the cifs tree got conflicts in:

  fs/cifs/file.c
  fs/cifs/fscache.h

between commit:

  a91e6e1c8074 ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite")

from the fscache tree and commit:

  70431bfd825d ("cifs: Support fscache indexing rewrite")

from the cifs tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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