Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1517740 > unrolled thread

linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the block tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the block tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-11-09 04:00 +0100
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the block tree "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com> - 2016-11-11 21:00 +0100
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the block  tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-11-17 03:50 +0100

#1517740 — linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the block tree

Hi Martin,

Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got conflicts 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:

  dcea0bfbc4cb ("scsi: ufs: fix sense buffer size to 18 bytes")

from the scsi-mkp tree.

This latter commit also exists as commit 2266d5678ad1 in the scsi tree,
but unfortunately, the scsi-mkp tree was rebased overnight, so now the
two patches are not the same commit :-(  A significant path of what was
rebased overnight has already been merged into the scsi tree ... so
please tidy up your tree WRT the scsi tree.  This conflict would not
exist if the rebase had not been done.

I fixed it up (it is also fixed in the scsi tree merge and so just
taking that version of the resolution works) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1519996

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> writes:

Stephen,

Stephen> This latter commit also exists as commit 2266d5678ad1 in the
Stephen> scsi tree, but unfortunately, the scsi-mkp tree was rebased
Stephen> overnight, so now the two patches are not the same commit :-( A
Stephen> significant path of what was rebased overnight has already been
Stephen> merged into the scsi tree ... so please tidy up your tree WRT
Stephen> the scsi tree.  This conflict would not exist if the rebase had
Stephen> not been done.

James' tree is usually a week or two behind mine. I almost never rebase
mid-cycle but in this case we had a data corruption bug fix that went to
Linus for 4.9 that a driver update depended on.

In any case. It seems like the fact that the two SCSI trees may be out
of sync could be an ongoing problem. So maybe you should just drop my
tree again. I was just hoping to get visibility into potential merge
problems sooner...

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1524038 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the block tree

Hi Martin,

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:55:24 -0500 "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> In any case. It seems like the fact that the two SCSI trees may be out
> of sync could be an ongoing problem. So maybe you should just drop my
> tree again. I was just hoping to get visibility into potential merge
> problems sooner...

I'll keep it for now and see how it goes ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web