From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail•com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit•edu>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger•kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
Chandan Rajendra <chandan@linux•vnet.ibm.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k•org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod•at>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ubifs tree with the fscrypt tree
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:39:03 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190108133855.03ac5cce@canb.auug.org.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181211102425.7019f0a7@canb.auug.org.au>
Hi all,
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:24:25 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the ubifs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/ubifs/Kconfig
>
> between commit:
>
> 6956097c429a ("fscrypt: remove filesystem specific build config option")
>
> from the fscrypt tree and commit:
>
> 1341551f1e2a ("ubifs: CONFIG_UBIFS_FS_AUTHENTICATION should depend on UBIFS_FS")
>
> from the ubifs 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc fs/ubifs/Kconfig
> index ff7ea6f04555,bc1e082d921d..000000000000
> --- a/fs/ubifs/Kconfig
> +++ b/fs/ubifs/Kconfig
> @@@ -65,9 -60,20 +62,9 @@@ config UBIFS_FS_XATT
>
> If unsure, say Y.
>
> -config UBIFS_FS_ENCRYPTION
> - bool "UBIFS Encryption"
> - depends on UBIFS_FS_XATTR && BLOCK
> - select FS_ENCRYPTION
> - default n
> - help
> - Enable encryption of UBIFS files and directories. This
> - feature is similar to ecryptfs, but it is more memory
> - efficient since it avoids caching the encrypted and
> - decrypted pages in the page cache.
> -
> config UBIFS_FS_SECURITY
> bool "UBIFS Security Labels"
> - depends on UBIFS_FS && UBIFS_FS_XATTR
> + depends on UBIFS_FS_XATTR
> default y
> help
> Security labels provide an access control facility to support Linux
This is now a conflict between Linus' tree and the fscrypt tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-08 2:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-10 23:24 linux-next: manual merge of the ubifs tree with the fscrypt tree Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-08 2:39 ` Stephen Rothwell [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190108133855.03ac5cce@canb.auug.org.au \
--to=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
--cc=chandan@linux$(echo .)vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod$(echo .)at \
--cc=tytso@mit$(echo .)edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox