linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the btrfs-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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:50:55 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.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 btrfs tree with the btrfs-fixes
 tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/btrfs/zoned.c

between commit:

  6ca64ac27631 ("btrfs: zoned: fix mounting with conventional zones")

from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:

  e5182af66852 ("btrfs: convert block group bit field to use bit helpers")

from the btrfs tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed some of the code modified 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