From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chandan Rajendra Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 10:26:09 +0530 Message-ID: <2265186.H1UptfE7Oa@localhost.localdomain> References: <20181211101322.438946fe@canb.auug.org.au> <20190102112610.3bc5fb97@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190102112610.3bc5fb97@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Theodore Ts'o , Jaegeuk Kim , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Chandan Rajendra List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 5:56:10 AM IST Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:13:22 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in: > > > > fs/f2fs/dir.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 848a010287e6 ("f2fs: use IS_ENCRYPTED() to check encryption status") > > > > from the fscrypt tree and commit: > > > > 4e240d1bab1e ("f2fs: check memory boundary by insane namelen") > > > > from the f2fs 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. > > > > This is now a conflict between the fscrypt tree and Linus' tree. > > fscrypt's master branch has fsverity patches applied. These are not available on Linus' tree. Hence the conflict. Just FYI, The discussion on merging fsverity into mainline kernel is still going on. -- chandan