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 <s...@canb.auug.org.au>
> 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
