From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:28:21 +0200 Message-ID: <4C497CD5.5010908@kernel.org> References: <20100723144600.dd4da992.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-next-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, David Howells , Steve French , linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Stephen Rothwell Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100723144600.dd4da992.sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Hello, Stephen. On 07/23/2010 06:46 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Tejun, > > Today's linux-next merge of the workqueues tree got a conflict in > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c between commit 4c0c03ca54f72fdd5912516ad0a23ec5cf01bda7 > ("CIFS: Fix a malicious redirect problem in the DNS lookup code") from > Linus' tree and commit 9b646972467fb5fdc677f9e4251875db20bdbb64 ("cifs: > use workqueue instead of slow-work") from the workqueues tree. > > I fixed it up (I think - I removed the call to cifs_exit_dns_resolver() > as there is no way to get to that code any more) and can carry the fix > for a while. Yes, one failure case is removed, so that would be correct. Thank you very much for taking care of the conflict. -- tejun