linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/37] cifs: Scripted header file cleanup and SMB1 split

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ccbe5da5-0922-4ba2-b4cb-fc1d0f4ce325@linux.dev>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 11:06:45 +0800
From: ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosong.chenxiaosong@...ux.dev>
To: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@...e.de>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Paulo Alcantara <pc@...guebit.org>,
 linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, henrique.carvalho@...e.com,
 ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosong@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/37] cifs: Scripted header file cleanup and SMB1 split

There are some conflicts when merging my patches into cifs-2.6.git 
for-next: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cifs/20260106071507.1420900-1-chenxiaosong.chenxiaosong@linux.dev/

Should I send a new version, or would you prefer a kernel tree with the 
conflicts resolved?

Thanks,
ChenXiaoSong <chenxiaosong@...inos.cn>

On 1/16/26 10:50, Steve French wrote:
> Chen,
> Will we need to rebase your patch series as well? Let me know your
> current cifs.ko patches for 6.20-rc