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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1673182 > unrolled thread

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

Started byJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
First post2017-06-23 05:10 +0200
Last post2017-06-23 05:30 +0200
Articles 6 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-06-23 05:10 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-06-23 05:30 +0200
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-06-23 05:40 +0200
        Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-06-23 06:00 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-06-23 05:30 +0200
      Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> - 2017-06-23 05:30 +0200

#1673182 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree

FromJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date2017-06-23 05:10 +0200
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree
Message-ID<tVn8R-593-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 06/22/2017 09:06 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   block/blk-mq-sched.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   8e8320c9315c ("blk-mq: fix performance regression with shared tags")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commits:
> 
>   d2c0d3832469 ("blk-mq: move blk_mq_sched_{get,put}_request to blk-mq.c")
>   44e8c2bff80b ("blk-mq: refactor blk_mq_sched_assign_ioc")
> 
> from the block 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.

I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved.

-- 
Jens Axboe

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1673191

FromJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date2017-06-23 05:30 +0200
Message-ID<tVnsd-5g3-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1673182
On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved.
> 
> Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ...

I don't want to pull the whole thing in, just that offending commit.


-- 
Jens Axboe

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

#1673198

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2017-06-23 05:40 +0200
Message-ID<tVnBT-5iX-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1673191
Hi Jens,

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:27:04 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> > 
> > On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:  
> >>
> >> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved.  
> > 
> > Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ...  
> 
> I don't want to pull the whole thing in, just that offending commit.

Your tree is already based on v4.12-rc5 so you are not really pulling
much in at all:

$ git rev-list --count --no-merges 8e8320c9315c ^block/for-next 
14

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

#1673209

FromJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date2017-06-23 06:00 +0200
Message-ID<tVnVf-5pm-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1673198
On 06/22/2017 09:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:27:04 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:  
>>>>
>>>> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved.  
>>>
>>> Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ...  
>>
>> I don't want to pull the whole thing in, just that offending commit.
> 
> Your tree is already based on v4.12-rc5 so you are not really pulling
> much in at all:
> 
> $ git rev-list --count --no-merges 8e8320c9315c ^block/for-next 
> 14

Yeah good point, I guess not a lot has happened since -rc5.

-- 
Jens Axboe

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

#1673192

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2017-06-23 05:30 +0200
Message-ID<tVnsd-5g3-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1673182
Hi Jens,

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved.

Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ...

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

#1673194

FromJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date2017-06-23 05:30 +0200
Message-ID<tVnse-5g3-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1673192
On 06/22/2017 09:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:22 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> I'll cherry pick that commit into the 4.13 branch to get this resolved.
> 
> Merging commit 8e8320c9315c might give a better result ...

To be clear, what I meant (and did) was cherry picking 8e8320c9315c
into for-4.13/block.

-- 
Jens Axboe

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web