linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the bcachefs tree with Linus' 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240711095057.469a268a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:50:57 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: 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 bcachefs tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/bcachefs/alloc_background.c

between commit:

  d39881d2da2a ("bcachefs: add check for missing fragmentation in check_alloc_to_lru_ref()")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  f75ad706a1cf ("bcachefs: fsck_err() may now take a btree_trans")

from the bcachefs tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former where they conflicted) 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