linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the vfs 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240108124922.37bd7fe3@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:49:22 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu
 <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: 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 ftrace tree with the vfs tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/tracefs/inode.c

between commit:

  da549bdd15c2 ("dentry: switch the lists of children to hlist")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  8186fff7ab64 ("tracefs/eventfs: Use root and instance inodes as default ownership")

from the ftrace tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the code modified by the former, so
I just did that) 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