linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57866CCC.20707@kernel.dk>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 09:31:08 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the block
 tree

On 07/12/2016 11:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>
>    drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>
> between commit:
>
>    f80ec966c19b ("nvme: Limit command retries")
>
> from the block tree and commit:
>
>    8cc07e463b0c ("NVMe: don't allocate unused nvme_major")
>
> from the akpm-current tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) 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.

Usually I'm not that picky with trivial stuff going through other trees, 
but with the amount of churn we have in NVMe, it really should go 
through the block tree.

-- 
Jens Axboe