linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the efi tree with the efi-fixes 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:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:22:12 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masahisa Kojima <masahisa.kojima@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the efi tree with the efi-fixes tree

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 05:39, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:13:03 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the efi tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   fs/efivarfs/super.c
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> >   0b6d38bdd6f8 ("efivarfs: Free s_fs_info on unmount")
> >   ab5c4251a009 ("efivarfs: Move efivarfs list into superblock s_fs_info")
> >
> > from the efi-fixes tree and commit:
> >
> >   b501d5b36f58 ("efivarfs: automatically update super block flag")
> >
> > from the efi 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.
>
> Actually the below is needed. ("info" is not a great name for, even a
> static, global variable.  And maybe what I have called "einfo" could be
> "sfi" like in efivarfs_kill_sb() ...)

Apologies, I should have spotted this myself.

I'll fix this up and sync up the branches so any conflicts are
resolved before they reach you.