linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the ubifs-fixes 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:   Wed, 16 Mar 2022 09:12:09 +0800
From:   Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
CC:     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 folio tree with the ubifs-fixes
 tree

在 2022/3/15 17:52, Stephen Rothwell 写道:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the folio tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    fs/ubifs/file.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    3b67db8a6ca8 ("ubifs: Fix to add refcount once page is set private")
> 
> from the ubifs-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>    c337f2f4f746 ("ubifs: Convert from invalidatepage to invalidate_folio")
> 
> from the folio tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I hope - 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.
> 
This conflict is handled right.
Acked-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>