linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable 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: <20251218161642.7706e7b3@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:16:42 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 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>, Mateusz Guzik
 <mjguzik@...il.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the
 mm-nonmm-unstable tree

Hi all,

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

  kernel/pid.c

between commit:

  0367a5dd4b09 ("pid: only take pidmap_lock once on alloc")

from the mm-nonmm-unstable tree and commit:

  6d864a1b1825 ("pid: only take pidmap_lock once on alloc")

from the fs-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter) 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