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]
Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:21 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <>,
        James Bottomley <>,
        Jens Axboe <>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <>,
        Martin Wilck <>, Christoph Hellwig <>
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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists