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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:50:56 +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 a conflict in:

  fs/cifs/smb2ops.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) 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