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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
