Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1517340
| From | James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block tree |
| Date | 2016-11-08 17:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sBhhU-3dr-43@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sB7sd-5dg-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 16:48 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e806402130c9 ("block: split out request-only flags into a new
> namespace")
>
> from the block tree and commit:
>
> 2266d5678ad1 ("scsi: ufs: fix sense buffer size to 18 bytes")
>
> from the scsi tree.
>
> I fixed it up (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.
Thanks for doing this. I think this is exactly the type of easily
resolvable conflict Linus likes to fix himself, so keeping the trees
separate seems the best options.
Regards,
James
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-11-08 06:50 +0100 Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block tree James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> - 2016-11-08 17:20 +0100
csiph-web