linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

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.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[Tejun Heo]

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

Hi Tejun,

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:28:21 +0200 Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, one failure case is removed, so that would be correct.

Thanks for the confirmation.  This should probably be fixed in the
workqueues tree before it is merged upstream.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On 07/23/2010 01:31 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Yes, one failure case is removed, so that would be correct.
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.  This should probably be fixed in the
> workqueues tree before it is merged upstream.

I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to
resolve the conflict.  Would pulling in master before requesting pull
be better?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 548 bytes --]

Hi Tejun,

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:34:55 +0200 Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to
> resolve the conflict.  Would pulling in master before requesting pull
> be better?

Either would work.  Linus is fine with doing merge fixups and, after all,
I figured it out. :-)

A description always helps, of course.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On 07/23/2010 01:42 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:34:55 +0200 Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to
>> resolve the conflict.  Would pulling in master before requesting pull
>> be better?
> 
> Either would work.  Linus is fine with doing merge fixups and, after all,
> I figured it out. :-)
> 
> A description always helps, of course.

Yeah, sorry about causng headaches in linux-next.  I'll test merge w/
mainline and let you know non-trivial conflicts for future commits.

Thank you.

-- 
tejun

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1029 bytes --]

Hi Tejun,

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:42:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:34:55 +0200 Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to
> > resolve the conflict.  Would pulling in master before requesting pull
> > be better?
> 
> Either would work.  Linus is fine with doing merge fixups and, after all,
> I figured it out. :-)
> 
> A description always helps, of course.

Linus has merged the cifs tree, so you could fix these conflicts in your
tree by merging the cifs tree that Linus' merged (rather than merging
against all of Linus' tree).   That would be commit
cb76d5e25008b76fb8e348c861d32659430ac3fa ("cifs: fsc should not default
to "on"") in Linus' tree.

Or you could leave it all to Linus if you want to.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1188 bytes --]

Hi Tejun,

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:04:59 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:42:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:34:55 +0200 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was thinking about sending pull request w/ a note describing how to
> > > resolve the conflict.  Would pulling in master before requesting pull
> > > be better?
> > 
> > Either would work.  Linus is fine with doing merge fixups and, after all,
> > I figured it out. :-)
> > 
> > A description always helps, of course.
> 
> Linus has merged the cifs tree, so you could fix these conflicts in your
> tree by merging the cifs tree that Linus' merged (rather than merging
> against all of Linus' tree).   That would be commit
> cb76d5e25008b76fb8e348c861d32659430ac3fa ("cifs: fsc should not default
> to "on"") in Linus' tree.
> 
> Or you could leave it all to Linus if you want to.

Actually there is some more stuff in the cifs tree that has not gone to
Linus, yet.  Sorry about that.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the Linus' tree

[David Howells]

Stephen Rothwell <sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 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.

Looks right.

David