linux-kernel - Re: 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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:15:55 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 4/14/19 9:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/bvec.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   1200e07f3ad4 ("block: don't use for-inside-for in bio_for_each_segment_all")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   52d52d1c98a9 ("block: only allow contiguous page structs in a bio_vec")
> 
> 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.

Looks fine Stephen - but due to this and the BFQ one, I've merged in
5.1-rc5 and resolved them as well. Tomorrow's branch should merge
cleanly for you.

-- 
Jens Axboe