[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191107153757.4999749b@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:37:57 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the y2038 tree with the scsi tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the y2038 tree got a conflict in:
drivers/scsi/sg.c
between commits:
a16a47416d3f ("scsi: sg: sg_ioctl(): fix copyout handling")
c35a5cfb4150 ("scsi: sg: sg_read(): simplify reading ->pack_id of userland sg_io_hdr_t")
d9fc5617bcb6 ("scsi: sg: sg_new_write(): don't bother with access_ok")
from the scsi tree and commits:
98aaaec4a150 ("compat_ioctl: reimplement SG_IO handling")
fd6c3d5accea ("compat_ioctl: move SG_GET_REQUEST_TABLE handling")
from the y2038 tree.
I fixed it up (I used one side for some conflicts and the other for
others - see the final file attached) 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
View attachment "sg.c" of type "text/x-c++src" (72103 bytes)
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists