linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the vfs-brauner 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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <987481.1737364906@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 09:21:46 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
    Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
    Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
    Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the vfs-brauner tree

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/afs/dir.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   6dd80936618c ("afs: Use netfslib for directories")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> 
>   8281b27ee7ec ("afs_d_revalidate(): use stable name and parent inode passed by caller")
> 
> from the vfs 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.

That looks correct.

Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>