Re: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree
From: Chandan Rajendra
Date: Wed Jan 02 2019 - 00:05:32 EST
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 <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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