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

Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:23:32 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Miklos Szeredi
 <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Jiachen Zhang
 <zhangjiachen.jaycee@...edance.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the fuse tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/fuse/file.c

between commit:

  8a5fb1864313 ("fuse: remove an unnecessary if statement")

from the fuse tree and commit:

  9a7eec48c971 ("fuse: adapt to breakup of struct file_lock")

from the vfs-brauner tree.

I fixed it up (the former removed a statement updated by 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