linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the vfs-brauner-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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZnQTtD_d-egGzooR@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 12:34:12 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the
 vfs-brauner-fixes tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/open.c

between commit:

  7536b2f06724e ("VFS: generate FS_CREATE before FS_OPEN when ->atomic_open used.")

from the vfs-brauner-fixes tree and commit:

  7d1cf5e624ef5 ("vfs: generate FS_CREATE before FS_OPEN when ->atomic_open used.")

from the vfs-brauner tree.

I fixed it up (see below) 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.

diff --cc fs/open.c
index 58110f0bf5ac8,28f2fcbebb1ba..0000000000000
--- a/fs/open.c
+++ b/fs/open.c

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)