On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 17:10, Greg KH wrote:
> Your patch has to apply on top of the existing one, so there's not an
> issue here.
> And might as well fix it now, as I can never count on a "future" patch
> getting merged.
It is already fixed, i.e. it applies cleanly against the existing
(i.e. 4.1
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 04:55:20PM +, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:07, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:23:00PM +, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > > Yes, of course I object to it.
> > I can not apply a patch to the stable trees that are not in Linus's tree
> >
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 16:07, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:23:00PM +, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > Yes, of course I object to it.
> I can not apply a patch to the stable trees that are not in Linus's tree
> first. So there's nothing I can do here with this.
Ok, we can wait until
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:23:00PM +, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Yes, of course I object to it. I ignored this version of the patch
> being applied to the older Linux versions, but for the latest versions
> surely the version that I have authored should be applied instead. I
> have se
Hello,
Yes, of course I object to it. I ignored this version of the patch
being applied to the older Linux versions, but for the latest versions
surely the version that I have authored should be applied instead. I
have sent to Andrew Morton both the 4.20-rc1 and 4.19.2 versions of
the patch. The 4
4.19-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Tetsuo Handa
commit 9f2df09a33aa2c76ce6385d382693f98d7f2f07e upstream.
syzbot is reporting too large memory allocation at bfs_fill_super() [1].
Since file system image is corrupted such that b
6 matches
Mail list logo
