linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the fscrypt 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 14 Feb 2022 19:26:12 +0000
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the fscrypt tree

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:11:39PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   489734ef94f4 ("iomap: support direct I/O with fscrypt using blk-crypto")
> 
> from the fscrypt tree and commit:
> 
>   07888c665b40 ("block: pass a block_device and opf to bio_alloc")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.
> 

Looks fine to me, thanks.

- Eric