linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the block 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:42:01 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc:     CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the cifs tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got conflicts in:

  fs/cifs/fscache.c

between commit:

  8378eea2e41f ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")

from the cifs tree and commit:

  220ae4a5c2ba ("cifs: use bvec_set_page to initialize bvecs")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter in
fscache_fallback_write_pages(), so I did that) 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