linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the erofs 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: <863d66e8-e6d3-d266-7660-a64e54330bdd@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:12:36 +0800
From:   Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the erofs tree



On 11/28/22 6:13 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/erofs/fscache.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   313e9413d512 ("erofs: switch to prepare_ondemand_read() in fscache mode")
> 
> from the erofs tree and commit:
> 
>   de4eda9de2d9 ("use less confusing names for iov_iter direction initializers")
> 
> from the vfs tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
> 

It looks good to me.  Thanks.


-- 
Thanks,
Jingbo