netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the net-next tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:01:43 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Amir Vadai <amir@...ai.me>, Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the net-next tree

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> How about "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 want also want to
> consider cooperate with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to
> minimise any particularly complex conflicts."

Yup, sounds fine.

Maybe you could even say "don't merge this to hide the problem",
because that has been another reaction in the past, but the above
already sounds pretty good.

                Linus