linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220906194146.GV13489@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 21:41:46 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the btrfs-fixes
 tree

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 10:15:49AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:50:55 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Actually the fix up is below ...

Thanks, looks correct to me. I've pushed a new for-next snapshot that
has the conflict resolved too.