From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>
To: "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "nab@linux-iscsi.org" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-bva tree with the
 target-updates tree
Thread-Topic: linux-next: manual merge of the target-bva tree with the
 target-updates tree
Thread-Index: AQHS2pOmcUKn88GpTEKVKBIaaN+p6aIPcpeA
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 04:59:40 +0000
Message-ID: <1496293179.16453.1.camel@sandisk.com>
References: <20170601141055.3b64fefc@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20170601141055.3b64fefc@canb.auug.org.au>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
wdcipoutbound: EOP-TRUE
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F63889E8FB7B9340B56C3ACE2C51477E@namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Jun 2017 04:59:40.8820
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b61c8803-16f3-4c35-9b17-6f65f441df86
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0401MB1534
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id v51501Rt005650
Content-Length: 1049
Lines: 30

On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 14:10 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Bart,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the target-bva tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4ff83daa0200 ("target: Re-add check to reject control WRITEs with overflow data")
> 
> from the target-updates tree and commit:
> 
>   2c66660df665 ("target: Fix overflow/underflow handling of commands with a Data-Out buffer")
> 
> from the target-bva tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think (guidance appreciated), 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.

Hello Stephen,

Thanks for having fixed this up. I hadn't noticed that Nic had queued up patches
that conflict with my patches. I will rebase my tree.

Bart.