linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the cifs 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230220190509.06e9a3cb@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2023 19:05:09 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>,
        "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the mm-stable tree with the cifs
 tree

Hi Matthew,

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 15:12:58 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 02:29:41PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > Doesn't look too bad to me.  Dave's commit is just removing the
> > > functions, so it doesn't matter how they're being changed.
> > > 
> > > The real question in my mind is why for-next is being updated two days
> > > before the merge window with new patches.  What's the point in -next
> > > if patches are being added at this late point?  
> > 
> > It's more of a transfer of a subset of my iov/splice patches from the
> > linux-block tree to the cifs tree.  I thought Jens would've dropped my branch
> > from his tree for the moment.  
> 
> Your iov/splice patches don't conflict.  The part that you snipped says
> it's c8859bc0c129 ("cifs: Remove unused code")

That is just the immediate conflict. See my other reply.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped