linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the nfsd 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: <20230809110334.63b7c566@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 11:03:34 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc:     Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>,
        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 the nfsd tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  block/blk-flush.c

between commit:

  bed5a600c6b0 ("block: Revert 615939a2ae73")

from the nfsd tree and commits:

  28b241237470 ("blk-flush: fix rq->flush.seq for post-flush requests")
  b175c86739d3 ("blk-flush: count inflight flush_data requests")

from the block tree.

I fixed it up (I used the former, though I wonder if 28b241237470 fixes
what the revert is trying to work around) 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