linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with the fs-current 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: <Zn7BuMWlQxmzB7lm@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:59:20 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
	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 btrfs tree with the fs-current tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/btrfs/qgroup.c

between commit:

  a7e4c6a3031c7 ("btrfs: qgroup: fix quota root leak after quota disable failure")

from the fs-current tree and commit:

  27a6520fbc259 ("btrfs: do not BUG_ON() when freeing tree block after error")

from the btrfs 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/btrfs/qgroup.c
index bf0f81d59b6bc,3cf9724eb188c..0000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c

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