linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the ext4 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240508220434.GA3620298@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 18:04:34 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the ext4
 tree

On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 04:59:53PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2024 08:47:00 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> > 
> > Ted, if you still can maybe just drop the ext4 patch for now?  I can
> > redo it for next merge window with the moved flag.
> 
> If the resolution I did is fine, I am sure Linus will cope (but worth
> mentioning it to him in the pull request).  Its a simple enough conflict.

I agree... but at the same time, the patch in question is a cleanup
and there's not a lot of downside in dropping this for a cycle.
Cristoph, is that right?  Will not taking this cleanup block anything
that you were hoping to land this cycle?

I'm fine either way with either asking Linus to fix up the merge, or
dropping it and picking it up later.  In fact, I'd be fine just simply
landing this post -rc1.

So what do people think?  Again, I don't have strong opinions one way
or another.

					- Ted