linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' 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: <f94e6ae4-e4d9-61fb-9e69-7b2ef08a38aa@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 06/22/2017 09:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/blk-mq-sched.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   8e8320c9315c ("blk-mq: fix performance regression with shared tags")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commits:
> 
>   d2c0d3832469 ("blk-mq: move blk_mq_sched_{get,put}_request to blk-mq.c")
>   44e8c2bff80b ("blk-mq: refactor blk_mq_sched_assign_ioc")
> 
> from the block 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.

I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved.

-- 
Jens Axboe