linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block 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: <d01f3c2c68f9e852b15526904f8dfd8cbcece120.camel@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:11:11 +0200
From:   Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.de>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block tree

On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 06:48 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it looks good to me as well.

Thanks,
Martin