linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] scsi: ufs: Abort tasks before clear them from doorbell

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: <137effceca0474e30bfbbfbbd71f9fbca53e1b9b.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Aug 2020 21:38:30 +0200
From:   Bean Huo <huobean@...il.com>
To:     Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     asutoshd@...eaurora.org, nguyenb@...eaurora.org,
        hongwus@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        saravanak@...gle.com, salyzyn@...gle.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] scsi: ufs: Abort tasks before clear them from
 doorbell

On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 09:20 +0800, Can Guo wrote:
> On 2020-08-31 02:11, Bean Huo wrote:
> > Hi Can
> > This patch conflicts and be not in line with this series patches :
> > h
> > ttps://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11709279/, which has been applied
> > into 5.9/scsi-fixes. But they are not apppiled in the 5.9/scsi-
> > queue.
> > 
> > Maybe you should rebase your patch from scsi-fixes branch. or do
> > you
> > have another better option?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Bean
> > 
> 
> I am pushing this change due to LINERSET handling needs it and
> LINERESET
> handling is added based on my previous changes to err_handler, which
> are
> picked by 5.10/scsi-queue. So the two are applied for 5.10/scsi-
> queue 
> only.
> Any conflicts you see on 5.10/scsi-queue?

Hi Can
I meant scsi-fixes branch. no conflict with scsi-queue branch. If the
the changes in the scsi-fixes branch  will never be merged to scsi-
queue branch.It is fine.

Thanks,
Bean

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Can Guo.