linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160614150737.015362de@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:07:37 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
	Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi Greg,

Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c

between commit:

  95fe6c1a209e ("block, fs, mm, drivers: use bio set/get op accessors")

from the block tree and commit:

  67b1a24e883c ("staging: lustre: llite: remove lloop device")

from the staging tree.

I fixed it up (I removed the file) and can carry the fix as
necessary. 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 also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell