linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] target updates for v3.16-rc1

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:09:35 -0700
From:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Quinn Tran <quinn.tran@...gic.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] target updates for v3.16-rc1

On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 11:07 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 15:39 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:05:16PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > The first is with virtio-scsi between what has been merged in scsi.git
> > > for "virtio_scsi: use cmd_size", and the "virtio-scsi: Enable DIF/DIX
> > > modes in SCSI host LLD" below.  (Adding Paolo + hch CC')
> > 
> > Just curious, why did we decide to take the virtio-scsi patches
> > through the target tree?  Seems like taking them through the scsi
> > tree would have been a lot simpler.
> > 
> 
> It's a matter of keeping changes together so they could be run from a
> single branch, without having to merge the entirety of scsi.git in order
> to test a new target features involving some manner of LLD changes.
> 
> Stuff like the qla2xxx target T10 PI where OK to go through scsi.git,
> because they really didn't depend on target changes, but for things like
> virtio-scsi + vhost-scsi T10 PI, or the iser-initiator + iser-target T10
> PI data_length changes where one can't function without the other,
> breaking up initiator / target patches across trees will just end up
> making my work-flow unnecessarily more difficult.
> 
> I'd say identifying these types of merge conflicts is what linux-next is
> supposed to be for, and at least this time around the conflicts ended up
> being straight-forward to resolve with srf's patches.
> 

... with SFR's patches, of course.  ;)

--nab

--
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/