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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <dc1b937f-7695-4b55-8981-b36dd0baf761@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:52:54 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>, 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 10/20/24 7:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/elevator.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b4ff6e93bfd0 ("elevator: do not request_module if elevator exists")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   a2c17a5ea44f ("block: return void from the queue_sysfs_entry load_module method")
> 
> from the block tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) 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'll cooperate better with myself :-)

Merge looks good - just did it on my end too for my for-next branch, and
it's identical. Your next pull of the block for-next branch should merge
cleanly.

-- 
Jens Axboe