linux-kernel - 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220614133419.5e10ba00@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 13:34:19 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     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: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the btrfs tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/btrfs/disk-io.c

between commit:

  fe9b88cb7288 ("btrfs: use preallocated page for super block write")

from the btrfs tree and commit:

  020ae1ea6060 ("btrfs: Use a folio in wait_dev_supers()")

from the folio tree.

I fixed it up (I did not know how to fix this up, so I used the former -
effectively reverting the latter) 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