linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160725163245.2f8fad4d@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:32:45 +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>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block
 tree

Hi all,

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:07:37 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> 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.

Since Linus has merged the staging tree, this file will need to be
removed when the block tree is merged into Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell