linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the btrfs-fixes 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: <20250107132612.71a1fe49@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 13:26:12 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
 <krisman@...e.de>, 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 block tree with the btrfs-fixes
 tree

Hi all,

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

  io_uring/uring_cmd.c

between commits:

  dadf03cfd4ea ("io_uring/cmd: rename struct uring_cache to io_uring_cmd_data")
  3347fa658a1b ("io_uring/cmd: add per-op data to struct io_uring_cmd_data")

from the btrfs-fixes tree and commit:

  e9447dc0b18d ("io_uring/uring_cmd: Allocate async data through generic helper")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (I removed io_uring_async_get() from this 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