Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221121142014.0ae7c8ff@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20221121142014.0ae7c8ff@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 13:47:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSTLnEX58gGFCEDHo8K3CBkU33b2oqVKUvDhRyz33ibmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with Linus' tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@huawei.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 10:20 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
>
>   security/commoncap.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   8cf0a1bc1287 ("capabilities: fix potential memleak on error path from vfs_getxattr_alloc()")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
>   f6fbd8cbf3ed ("lsm,fs: fix vfs_getxattr_alloc() return type and caller error paths")
>
> from the security tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.

That's more or less what I've done with my builds, thanks Stephen.

I asked this on a previous conflict but never received an answer so
I'll ask it one more time: is there a recommended way to notify
linux-next of an upcoming conflict?  I generally notice the merge
conflict within a few minutes of merging the patches into a -next
branch, and fix it shortly afterwards.  I'm happy to provide a
heads-up, and a merge example, but I'm not sure what the process is
for that, if any.  Or, would you simply prefer to notice it yourself?
I'm not bothered either way, I just thought you might appreciate the
heads-up.

-- 
paul-moore.com