linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the mm 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]

Message-ID: <20230915091421.58207f2c@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:14:21 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the mm tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/btrfs/super.c

between commit:

  c0824542e4d1 ("fs: super: dynamically allocate the s_shrink")

from the mm tree and commit:

  2ebed4689ba2 ("btrfs: open block devices after superblock creation")

from the btrfs 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped