linux-kernel - 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210809142909.1d5fab20@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 9 Aug 2021 14:29:09 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Hao Xu <haoxu@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  fs/io-wq.c

between commit:

  21698274da5b ("io-wq: fix lack of acct->nr_workers < acct->max_workers judgement")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  e16aa0c614c6 ("io-wq: remove GFP_ATOMIC allocation off schedule out path")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version, but more may be needed?) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped