linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the mm-nonmm-stable tree with Linus' 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: <20240315094649.7088cf6a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:46:49 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, Linus Torvalds
 <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 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 mm-nonmm-stable tree with Linus'
 tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the mm-nonmm-stable tree got a conflict in:

  fs/ocfs2/super.c

between commit:

  f88c3fb81c4b ("mm, slab: remove last vestiges of SLAB_MEM_SPREAD")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  46bd9449464a ("ocfs2: remove SLAB_MEM_SPREAD flag usage")

from the mm-nonmm-stable tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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