linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the cifs 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: <20240906111810.5dd846b5@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 11:18:10 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Steve French
 <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
 Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Steve French
 <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the cifs tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/netfs/io.c

between commit:

  ab8521891072 ("netfs, cifs: Improve some debugging bits")

from the cifs tree and commit:

  550bc501ff91 ("netfs: Remove fs/netfs/io.c")

from the vfs-brauner tree.

I fixed it up (I removed the file) 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