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: <20221121134617.7eec695a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 13:46:17 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Dylan Yudaken <dylany@...a.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
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:

  io_uring/net.c

between commit:

  91482864768a ("io_uring: fix multishot accept request leaks")

from Linus' tree and commits:

  01661287389d ("io_uring: revert "io_uring fix multishot accept ordering"")
  6488182c989a ("io_uring: remove allow_overflow parameter")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version where they conflicted) 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