linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs 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: <20220711133851.0ad00263@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:38:51 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.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 block tree with the vfs tree

Hi all,

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

  drivers/block/mtip32xx/mtip32xx.c

between commit:

  c9d86760342f ("fs: do not set no_llseek in fops")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  ec5263f422a3 ("mtip32xx: remove the device_status debugfs file")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed a line that was also removed by 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