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

Message-ID: <a48f78a5-901b-20be-8df0-d69770710932@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 13 Dec 2018 21:06:47 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
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 the scsi-fixes
 tree

On 12/13/18 7:23 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/scsi/sd.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   61cce6f6eece ("scsi: sd: use mempool for discard special page")
> 
> from the scsi-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   159b2cbf59f4 ("scsi: return blk_status_t from scsi_init_io and ->init_command")
> 
> 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.

Martin, I can carry this one to avoid this conflict. Let me know!

-- 
Jens Axboe