[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250616105846.45af3a7b@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 10:58:46 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, wangzijie <wangzijie1@...or.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the mm-unstable tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the fs-next tree got a conflict in:
include/linux/proc_fs.h
between commit:
e4cbb84d3ce3 ("proc: use the same treatment to check proc_lseek as ones for proc_read_iter et.al")
from the mm-unstable tree and commit:
5943c611c47c ("procfs: kill ->proc_dops")
from the fs-next 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc include/linux/proc_fs.h
index 703d0c76cc9a,de1d24f19f76..000000000000
--- a/include/linux/proc_fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/proc_fs.h
@@@ -27,7 -27,8 +27,9 @@@ enum
PROC_ENTRY_proc_read_iter = 1U << 1,
PROC_ENTRY_proc_compat_ioctl = 1U << 2,
+ PROC_ENTRY_proc_lseek = 1U << 3,
+
+ PROC_ENTRY_FORCE_LOOKUP = 1U << 7,
};
struct proc_ops {
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists