linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the 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:	Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:41:01 -0500
From:	Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the  tree

On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
>>>> drivers/block/loop.c between commit 2486740b52fd ("loop: use aio to
>>>> perform io on the underlying file") from the aio-direct tree and commit
>>>> ed2d2f9a8265 ("block: Abstract out bvec iterator") from the block tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (I think - see below - I have also attached the final
>>>> resulting file) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is
>>>> required).
>>>>
>>>
>>> What tree is this from? It'd be a lot more convenient to fold that loop
>>> patch into my tree, especially since the block tree in linux-next failed
>>> after this merge.
>>
>> I can only agree with you.  It is from the aio-direct tree (probably
>> misnamed by me) (git://github.com/kleikamp/linux-shaggy.git#for-next) run
>> by Dave Kleikamp.
> 
> Dave, input requested.
> 
> In any case, I would suggest dropping the aio-direct tree instead of the
> entire block tree for coverage purposes, if merge or build failures
> happen because of it.

I've had these patches in linux-next since August, and I'd really like
to push them in the 3.13 merge window.

Are there other problems besides this merge issue? I'll take a closer
look at Stephen's merge patch and see if I find any other issues, but I
really don't want to pull these patches out of linux-next now.

Thanks,
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/