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: <037df910-899c-688c-a4f1-a280cb3b5987@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 9 Aug 2021 08:05:19 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 8/8/21 10:29 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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.

I'm going to re-shuffle the 5.15 branch, I knew we'd be hitting this
conflict after the merge for 5.14 on Saturday. Hence it'll be a short
lived conflict.

-- 
Jens Axboe