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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220321122217.6bc6b678@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:22:17 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        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:

  drivers/nvme/target/configfs.c

between commit:

  0c48645a7f39 ("nvmet: revert "nvmet: make discovery NQN configurable"")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  73d77c53ff34 ("nvmet: don't fold lines")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (The former removed some code that was updated by the
latter) 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