[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84c02649-1eeb-3d28-6cc2-0a5d0f5f6b7d@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:21 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block tree
On 4/14/19 10:59 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/scsi/sd.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c92e2f04b359 ("block: disk_events: introduce event flags")
>
> from the block tree and commit:
>
> 21e6ba3f0e02 ("scsi: sd: Rely on the driver core for asynchronous probing")
> d16ece577bf2 ("scsi: sd: Inline sd_probe_part2()")
>
> from the scsi 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.
Thanks Stephen for having resolved this conflict. The conflict resolution
looks good to me.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists