Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751163AbdFAFEH (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 01:04:07 -0400 Received: from mail.linux-iscsi.org ([67.23.28.174]:42776 "EHLO linux-iscsi.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750848AbdFAFEG (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 01:04:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1496293444.27407.184.camel@haakon3.risingtidesystems.com> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the target-bva tree with the target-updates tree From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 22:04:04 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1496293179.16453.1.camel@sandisk.com> References: <20170601141055.3b64fefc@canb.auug.org.au> <1496293179.16453.1.camel@sandisk.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1452 Lines: 37 On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 04:59 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > 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. > Go ahead and get list review on drivers/target/ changes before pushing them into linux-next, please. Btw, I don't care if you queue up one's that do have at least two Reviewed-bys into your tree, but everything that doesn't have Reviewed-bys or Acked-by should not be going into linux-next.