linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the target-updates 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]

Message-Id: <20130709132753.4ccecde4e20ac109ebeedc8e@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:27:53 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Asias He <asias@...hat.com>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vhost tree with the
 target-updates tree

Hi Nicholas,

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:13:26 -0700 "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:47 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vhost tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/vhost/scsi.c between commit 084ed45b3846 ("vhost/scsi: Convert to
> > se_cmd->cmd_kref TARGET_SCF_ACK_KREF usage") from the target-updates tree
> > and commit 3c63f66a0dcd ("vhost-scsi: Rename struct tcm_vhost_cmd *tv_cmd
> > to *cmd") from the vhost tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> > is required).
> > 
> 
> Can you briefly refresh my memory how the process of 'carrying the fix'
> in linux-next should work..?

That means that (assuming my fix is correct), I will continue to apply
that fix until your trees are merged into Linus' tree.  (git rerere is my
friend :-))

> So once I send a -rc1 PULL request to Linus over the next days, and MST
> sends one shortly there-after and hits a conflict, you'll include this
> patch in a separate next-fixes branch for Linus to PULL..?

No, Linus will figure it out just as I did.  If you want to give him a
hint, that 's fine.  The main intention of my "I fixed it up and can
carry the fix as necessary (no action is required)" is to just get you
guys to check that what I did was correct, and to dissuade you from
merging/rebasing/rewriting your tree(s) to eliminate the conflict.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped