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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YRvmZ77w6zeG4BrU@slm.duckdns.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 06:40:07 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        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 Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 03:25:47PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/mq-deadline-cgroup.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0f7839955114 ("Revert "block/mq-deadline: Add cgroup support"")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   252c651a4c85 ("blk-cgroup: stop using seq_get_buf")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just removed the file) 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.

Ah, that probably isn't the right resolution. The seq_get_buf change needs
to be applied to the original mq-deadline.c file. Jens, how do you wanna
proceed?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun