linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the btrfs 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, 10 May 2022 10:43:07 +0100
From:   Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        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 btrfs tree



On 10/05/22 09:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the folio tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/btrfs/send.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   d1a1a97304b4 ("btrfs: send: keep the current inode open while processing it")
> 
> from the btrfs tree and commit:
> 
>   2ebdd1df3166 ("mm/readahead: Convert page_cache_async_readahead to take a folio")
> 
> from the folio tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as

Looks correct to me.
Thanks.

> 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.
>