linux-kernel - upcoming merge window: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs 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]

Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 10:59:39 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: upcoming merge window: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the
 vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs tree

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:25:43AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:55:13 +0200 David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
> >
> > I have updated my for-next branch again, sorry (top commit 1a4dc97c883a4f763cbaf50).
> > There are some fixes I don't want to miss from the 6.7 pull request.
> > There should be minimal change to the VFS tree conflict resolution so
> > the diff should be reusable.
> 
> So, why did you not just merge in v6.6-rc7 (or better yet, the branch
> that contains the fix(es) that Linus merged) and then apply your new
> commits on top of that?  All the commits that were in the btrfs tree
> have been rebased unchanged.

Please reconsider that and follow Stephen's suggestion. I'm sending pull
requests this week and it'd be really annoying having to rebase
vfs.super right before sending them.

We let you carry the required patches in btrfs on your insistence even
though this effectively blocked two patchsets for a whole cycle and then
merged in btrfs into vfs.super for that. Rebasing on such short notice
is really not very nice.

I'm going to wait with the rebase for a bit.