linux-kernel - 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190415130024.68c7d2a8@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 13:00:24 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Angelo Ruocco <angelo.ruocco.90@...il.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  block/bfq-iosched.c

between commit:

  eed47d19d936 ("block, bfq: fix use after free in bfq_bfqq_expire")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  636b8fe86bed ("block, bfq: fix some typos in comments")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (the former included the fix from the latter, so I just
used that) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped