linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs-brauner 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]

Message-ID: <20240207-garen-gedanken-48c03f835362@brauner>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:27:57 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
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>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs-brauner
 tree

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 09:37:33AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/5/24 6:48 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   block/blk.h
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   19db932fd2b0 ("bdev: make bdev_{release, open_by_dev}() private to block layer")
> >   09f8289e1b74 ("bdev: make struct bdev_handle private to the block layer")
> >   d75140abba91 ("bdev: remove bdev pointer from struct bdev_handle")
> > 
> > from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
> > 
> >   c4e47bbb00da ("block: move cgroup time handling code into blk.h")
> >   08420cf70cfb ("block: add blk_time_get_ns() and blk_time_get() helpers")
> >   da4c8c3d0975 ("block: cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug")
> >   06b23f92af87 ("block: update cached timestamp post schedule/preemption")
> > 
> > from the block 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.
> 
> That's a lot of conflicts. Christian, we really should separate some of
> these so we can have the shared bits in a shared branch.

Yes, happy to do that. Let's quickly sync later today when you're up?