linux-kernel - 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2023 09:20:01 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the btrfs
 tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/btrfs/super.c

between commit:

  2f2cfead5107 ("btrfs: remove old mount API code")

from the btrfs tree and commit:

  ead622674df5 ("btrfs: Do not restrict writes to btrfs devices")

from the vfs-brauner tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed the funtion updated by the latter, but
a further fix may be required to implement the intent of 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