From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B835DC43387 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 02:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71221206A3 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 02:39:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=canb.auug.org.au header.i=@canb.auug.org.au header.b="DeJkwDbo" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727374AbfAHCjK (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:39:10 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.11.71.1]:46603 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727160AbfAHCjK (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:39:10 -0500 Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43Yc082ZjJz9sD9; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:39:04 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=canb.auug.org.au; s=201702; t=1546915147; bh=Iy+GW6lMSyQYMAIzYRM2zLRZnNI7DE8YoPLu3cXX1zQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=DeJkwDbouZKtmROiZUstpuAvDM9XQm+JdiIoqgKa+qFYWF6fOBTKtAHThxpiPw2ry biXyKdbg08LzRsZJW63nIXy/Q1q5rcwQfrqks9vGcR37L0UFS9YKxeo1i/I0sZnofM +Uy9LAWE16CM+RHULcwr5zEpENch4ePj1ZwRjBDzBHZLrN0wS/luYIwF6plEZR8VpE 0AaaLRALMmKVU99/OWHK93+TShdsFSip/CXnumxpA7fkcEGxRqVB+gGF7KmuNI6My4 KiqgEoAEGwdhq33WMagCLMH1H66ZyoKhBtkpAV+bVfaGqie4+1/+vLPRsDxM4njKtv 58sZkaqsoKMzg== Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:39:03 +1100 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Artem Bityutskiy , Theodore Ts'o Cc: Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Chandan Rajendra , Geert Uytterhoeven , Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ubifs tree with the fscrypt tree Message-ID: <20190108133855.03ac5cce@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20181211102425.7019f0a7@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20181211102425.7019f0a7@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:24:25 +1100 Stephen Rothwell 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