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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 08:28:56 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
 Prasad Singamsetty <prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs-brauner
 tree

On 6/29/24 4:05 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 06:59:39PM GMT, Mark Brown wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   fs/stat.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   0ef625bba6fb2 ("vfs: support statx(..., NULL, AT_EMPTY_PATH, ...)")
>>
>> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>>
>>   0f9ca80fa4f96 ("fs: Add initial atomic write support info to statx")
>>   9abcfbd235f59 ("block: Add atomic write support for statx")
>>
>> from the block tree.
> 
> Jens,
> 
> Can you give me the fs bits and I'll put them in a shared branch we can
> both pull in?

It's pretty far down in my tree at this point, so I think we'll just
have to live with this conflict. At least it's not a complicated one to
resolve.

-- 
Jens Axboe


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ