linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-bva tree with the target-updates 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: <1496293444.27407.184.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2017 22:04:04 -0700
From:   "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
Cc:     "sfr@...b.auug.org.au" <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-bva tree with the
 target-updates tree

On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 04:59 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 14:10 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Bart,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the target-bva tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   4ff83daa0200 ("target: Re-add check to reject control WRITEs with overflow data")
> > 
> > from the target-updates tree and commit:
> > 
> >   2c66660df665 ("target: Fix overflow/underflow handling of commands with a Data-Out buffer")
> > 
> > from the target-bva tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I think (guidance appreciated), 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.
> 
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> Thanks for having fixed this up. I hadn't noticed that Nic had queued up patches
> that conflict with my patches. I will rebase my tree.
> 

Go ahead and get list review on drivers/target/ changes before pushing
them into linux-next, please.

Btw, I don't care if you queue up one's that do have at least two
Reviewed-bys into your tree, but everything that doesn't have
Reviewed-bys or Acked-by should not be going into linux-next.