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: <da89f6e8-31b6-70bd-f0af-6cf49fb08c56@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 07:47:04 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
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: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

On 11/20/22 7:46 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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.

I fixed up the 6.2 io_uring branch and for-next, so you should not be
seeing this one again.

-- 
Jens Axboe