linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the libata 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: <74c0bf0c-1a7e-41aa-a9d5-2b7d8f4275e1@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:09:56 +0900
From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
 "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
 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 scsi-mkp tree with the libata
 tree

On 1/27/26 07:06, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/ata/libata.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   0ea84089dbf62 ("ata: libata-scsi: avoid Non-NCQ command starvation")
> 
> from the libata tree and commit:
> 
>   0db3f51839fe7 ("scsi: Change the return type of the .queuecommand() callback")
> 
> from the scsi-mkp 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.

Mark,

Thank you for the fix. It looks good.

Martin,

What do you want to do ? I can rebase the 2 ata patches involved with this
conflict and you can take them in the scsi tree (that should not generate
another conflict with libata). Or we just leave this as is and sync up our PRs
for 6.20 so that Linus is notified of the conflict by one of us ?

> 
> diff --cc drivers/ata/libata.h
> index 9b4e578ad07ec,0e48bd1c0c206..0000000000000
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata.h
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata.h
> @@@ -165,9 -164,8 +165,10 @@@ extern int ata_scsi_user_scan(struct Sc
>   void ata_scsi_sdev_config(struct scsi_device *sdev);
>   int ata_scsi_dev_config(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct queue_limits *lim,
>   		struct ata_device *dev);
> - int __ata_scsi_queuecmd(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd, struct ata_device *dev);
> + enum scsi_qc_status __ata_scsi_queuecmd(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd,
> + 					struct ata_device *dev);
>  +void ata_scsi_deferred_qc_work(struct work_struct *work);
>  +void ata_scsi_requeue_deferred_qc(struct ata_port *ap);
>   
>   /* libata-eh.c */
>   extern unsigned int ata_internal_cmd_timeout(struct ata_device *dev, u8 cmd);

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research