linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 10:17:43 +0800
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the mm tree

Hi Stephen,

The diff looks good to me.

Thanks,
Qi

On 2023/9/15 07:47, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> [Forgot the diff ...]
> 
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 09:14:21 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>