linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the rdma-fixes 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: <1525269652.11756.134.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 02 May 2018 10:00:52 -0400
From:   Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhu Yanjun <yanjun.zhu@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the rdma-fixes
 tree

On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 13:22 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:55:35PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 10:10 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   9fd4350ba895 ("B/rxe: avoid double kfree_skb")
> > > 
> > > from the rdma-fixes tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   2e47350789eb ("IB/rxe: optimize the function duplicate_request")
> > > 
> > > from the rdma tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (I think - 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.
> > > 
> > 
> > We will probably merge the for-rc branch into the for-next branch in the
> > next few days, at which point we will do the conflict resolution
> > ourselves and your need to carry anything should drop out.
> 
> Isn't "rdma/wip/for-testing" branch intended for this?

Not really.  It's there to provide a pre-merged branch for people to
test.  But, I've rarely seen a release cycle where, *sometime*, we
didn't get a patch set in the for-next that depends on changes in the
for-rc area, and in that case, you need to merge for-rc into for-next. 
If we don't have that this cycle, then you're right, I won't merge for-
rc into for-next and for-testing will be the throwaway merge branch.  On
occasion, if the merge fixups needed between for-rc and for-next get too
difficult for a non-RDMA person to sus out, then we will do a merge of
for-rc into for-next simply so we can provide the right merge fixup, but
I doubt this merge fixup rises to that level.

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
    GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
    Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)