linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the tip 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170120063552.GA14142@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:35:52 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the tip tree


* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi James,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e963b7088dac ("scsi: mpt3sas: Fix hang on ata passthru commands")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>   ffb584565894 ("scsi: mpt3sas: fix hang on ata passthrough commands")
> 
> from the scsi tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (slightly different versions of the same patch - I used
> the latter version) 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.

I only had that patch for testing and it went into the -next branch by accident - 
I have removed it so the conflict should be gone next time -next is integrated.

Thanks,

	Ingo