linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfs 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: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:12:09 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Trond Myklebust
 <trondmy@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
 Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)"
 <willy@...radead.org>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Trond Myklebust
 <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the nfs tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/nfs/symlink.c

between commit:

  134d0b3f2440 ("nfs: propagate readlink errors in nfs_symlink_filler")

from the nfs tree and commit:

  8f3ab6e4bebe ("nfs: Remove calls to folio_set_error")

from the vfs-brauner tree.

I fixed it up (the latter included the change from thr 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