linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-updates tree with the scsi-mkp 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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:11:07 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Quinn Tran <quinn.tran@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-updates tree with the
 scsi-mkp tree

Hi all,

With the merge window approaching, this is just a reminder that the
following conflict still exists.  No action is necessarily needed
except to maybe mention this to Linus at the appropriate time.

James, you have been added since you merged the scsi-mkp tree int the
scsi tree.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:47:42 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Nicholas,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the target-updates tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/scsi/qla2xxx/qla_target.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   f775bd14e44d ("scsi: qla2xxx: Convert 32-bit LUN usage to 64-bit")
> 
> from the scsi-mkp tree and commit:
> 
>   6b26726af699 ("qla2xxx: Convert QLA_TGT_ABTS to TARGET_SCF_LOOKUP_LUN_FROM_TAG")
> 
> from the target-updates tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I basically used the latter verion of
> __qlt_24xx_handle_abts()) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell