linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the erofs-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: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:55:14 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Baokun Li <libaokun@...weicloud.com>,
 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
 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 vfs-brauner tree with the
 erofs-fixes tree



On 2024/4/24 20:51, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 10:13:43AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 2024/4/24 09:26, Baokun Li wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On 2024/4/24 8:24, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>     fs/erofs/super.c
>>>>
>>>> between commits:
>>>>
>>>>     ab1bbc1735ff ("erofs: get rid of erofs_fs_context")
>>>>     569a48fed355 ("erofs: reliably distinguish block based and fscache mode")
>>>>
>>>> from the erofs-fixes tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>>     e4f586a41748 ("erofs: reliably distinguish block based and fscache mode")
>>>>
>>>> from the vfs-brauner tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (I think - I used the former version) 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.
>>>>
>>> Christian previously mentioned that the fix from the vfs-brauner tree
>>> was an accident:
>>>
>>> "An an accident on my part as I left it in the vfs.fixes branch."
>>>
>>> So the two commits from the erofs-fixes tree are the final fixes.
>>>
>>> I'm very sorry for any inconvenience caused.
>>
>> Yeah, Christian was picked this fix by accident as mentioned in,
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240419-tundra-komodowaran-5c3758d496e4@brauner
>>
>> I guest that was due to his local work at that time since the
>> original idea to fix this issue was from him (thanks again!).
> 
> Yeah, sorry about that. I dropped it a few days ago but was on the road
> for a bit. I'll push a new version by eod.

Yeah, sounds good, thanks :-)

Thanks,
Gao Xiang