linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the block 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: <20220715191957.63d3d644@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jul 2022 19:19:57 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        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 block tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/buffer.c

between commit:

  1420c4a549bf ("fs/buffer: Combine two submit_bh() and ll_rw_block() arguments")

from the block tree and commit:

  215e71b6ee7a ("fs: remove the nobh helpers")

from the folio tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed some code that was updated by the
former) 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.

BTW: the latter commit missed a reference to nobh_write_begin in
Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped