linux-kernel - Re: for-4.8/drivers and Linus' tree + staging conflicts?

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: <4790e021-0695-abd4-9281-4f7342c79e59@fb.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:48:37 -0600
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
CC:	<bob.liu@...cle.com>, <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: for-4.8/drivers and Linus' tree + staging conflicts?

On 07/15/2016 10:19 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Hey Jens,
>
> I have some patches for Xen block driver that are based on Linus's tree
> which has:
> 7b427a5     xen-blkfront: save uncompleted reqs in blkfront_resume()
>
> That particular patch conflicts with your for-4.8/driver branch.
>
> What I was wondering is if:
>
>  1) Do you want me to create a branh for you to pull in your
>     for-4.8/drivers that has the above patch (and a resolution)?
>     And along with that the rest of the patches I've for 4.8?

No, I don't want a lot of extra gunk.

>  2) Or if you are going rebase your 'for-4.8/drivers' branch
>    on top of v4.7-rc7 (which will pull in the above commit?)

Or that, I never rebase those branches.

>  3) Stash the patches I've in the Xen tip tree (which is
>    based on 4.7-rc7) for 4.8 with me putting your Ack on them?
>    See below log and the full diff.

We can do that, or I can stage them for post initial merge (essentially 
my for-linus, which I could base on 4.7-rc7 now). I'm fine with either.

-- 
Jens Axboe