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]

Message-ID: <c8ab123b-b984-0024-2727-53d900a0f5ed@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:40:14 -0700
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>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 1/27/20 5:38 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/io_uring.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   73e08e711d9c ("Revert "io_uring: only allow submit from owning task"")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   9ef4f124894b ("io_uring: clamp to_submit in io_submit_sqes()")
> 
> 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.

Thanks, looks good to me. I'll try cooperating better with myself ;-)

-- 
Jens Axboe