Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1449343
| From | Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree |
| Date | 2016-07-25 10:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rYJ7z-2aj-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rYBWp-66u-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rYC65-69G-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:24:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Al,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> fs/overlayfs/super.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> e2475b7276d0 ("ovl: check mounter creds on underlying lookup")
>>
>> from the overlayfs tree and commit:
>>
>> b3ac9a85b31c ("qstr: constify instances in overlayfs")
>>
>> from the vfs 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.
>
> FWIW, if Miklos could pick that one-liner into overlayfs tree, I'd be only
> happy to drop it from that queue.
OK, picked that one.
Thanks,
Miklos
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-07-25 02:30 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 02:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> - 2016-07-25 10:10 +0200
csiph-web