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: <Zn7DFyeBCg4LPZTT@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:05:11 +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/tree-log.c

between commit:

  d1825752e3074 ("btrfs: use NOFS context when getting inodes during logging and log replay")

from the fs-current tree and commits:

  2eb717ce25c03 ("btrfs: use NOFS context when getting inodes during logging and log replay")
  8cfe0e0697c2d ("btrfs: remove super block argument from btrfs_iget()")

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/tree-log.c
index 0bce1d45e2526,f0cf8ce26f010..0000000000000
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ