linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the mm-unstable 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250509093257.6f30ba58@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 09:32:57 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, 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 mm-unstable tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/btrfs/extent_io.c

between commit:

  38e541051e1d ("btrfs: open code folio_index() in btree_clear_folio_dirty_tag()")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  88916e92c953 ("btrfs: drop usage of folio_index")

from the mm-unstable tree.

I fixed it up (basically the same change - I used the former) 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