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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1680609 > unrolled thread

Re: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window

Started byLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
First post2017-07-04 00:50 +0200
Last post2017-07-04 22:40 +0200
Articles 5 — 3 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: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-07-04 00:50 +0200
    Re: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-07-04 10:00 +0200
      Re: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> - 2017-07-04 10:10 +0200
        Re: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> - 2017-07-04 10:30 +0200
          Re: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-07-04 22:40 +0200

#1680609 — Re: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window

FromLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date2017-07-04 00:50 +0200
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window
Message-ID<tZiki-7UA-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Martin Schwidefsky
<schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> please pull from the 'for-linus' branch of
>
>         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git for-linus

So my conflict resolution looks different from the one Stephen posted,
which may be due to various reasons, ranging from "linux-next has
other things that conflict" to just "I didn't notice some semantic
conflict since unlike linux-next I don't build for s390".

Regardless, you should check my current -git tree just to verify, and
send me a patch if I screwed something up.

          Linus

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1680733

FromStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date2017-07-04 10:00 +0200
Message-ID<tZqUy-5oE-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1680609
Hi Linus,

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:46:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Martin Schwidefsky
> <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > please pull from the 'for-linus' branch of
> >
> >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git for-linus  
> 
> So my conflict resolution looks different from the one Stephen posted,
> which may be due to various reasons, ranging from "linux-next has
> other things that conflict" to just "I didn't notice some semantic
> conflict since unlike linux-next I don't build for s390".
> 
> Regardless, you should check my current -git tree just to verify, and
> send me a patch if I screwed something up.

At least part of the difference is the following merge fix patch I have
been carrying.  It is needed due to a build failure.

From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:51:32 +1000
Subject: [PATCH] s390: fix up for "blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to
 blk_status_t"

Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
---
 drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
index 42018a20f2b7..0071febac9e6 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
@@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ struct scm_queue {
 	spinlock_t lock;
 };
 
-static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
+static blk_status_t scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
 			   const struct blk_mq_queue_data *qd)
 {
 	struct scm_device *scmdev = hctx->queue->queuedata;
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
 	spin_lock(&sq->lock);
 	if (!scm_permit_request(bdev, req)) {
 		spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
-		return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
+		return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
 	}
 
 	scmrq = sq->scmrq;
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
 		if (!scmrq) {
 			SCM_LOG(5, "no request");
 			spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
-			return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
+			return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
 		}
 		scm_request_init(bdev, scmrq);
 		sq->scmrq = scmrq;
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
 
 		sq->scmrq = NULL;
 		spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
-		return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
+		return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
 	}
 	blk_mq_start_request(req);
 
@@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
 		sq->scmrq = NULL;
 	}
 	spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
-	return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK;
+	return BLK_STS_OK;
 }
 
 static int scm_blk_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data,
-- 
2.11.0

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

#1680741

FromMartin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Date2017-07-04 10:10 +0200
Message-ID<tZr4f-5Hh-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1680733
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:58:18 +1000
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Linus,
> 
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:46:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Martin Schwidefsky
> > <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:  
> > >
> > > please pull from the 'for-linus' branch of
> > >
> > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git for-linus    
> > 
> > So my conflict resolution looks different from the one Stephen posted,
> > which may be due to various reasons, ranging from "linux-next has
> > other things that conflict" to just "I didn't notice some semantic
> > conflict since unlike linux-next I don't build for s390".
> > 
> > Regardless, you should check my current -git tree just to verify, and
> > send me a patch if I screwed something up.  
> 
> At least part of the difference is the following merge fix patch I have
> been carrying.  It is needed due to a build failure.
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:51:32 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] s390: fix up for "blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to
>  blk_status_t"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> index 42018a20f2b7..0071febac9e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ struct scm_queue {
>  	spinlock_t lock;
>  };
> 
> -static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> +static blk_status_t scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
>  			   const struct blk_mq_queue_data *qd)
>  {
>  	struct scm_device *scmdev = hctx->queue->queuedata;
> @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
>  	spin_lock(&sq->lock);
>  	if (!scm_permit_request(bdev, req)) {
>  		spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> -		return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> +		return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
>  	}
> 
>  	scmrq = sq->scmrq;
> @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
>  		if (!scmrq) {
>  			SCM_LOG(5, "no request");
>  			spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> -			return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> +			return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
>  		}
>  		scm_request_init(bdev, scmrq);
>  		sq->scmrq = scmrq;
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> 
>  		sq->scmrq = NULL;
>  		spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> -		return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> +		return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
>  	}
>  	blk_mq_start_request(req);
> 
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
>  		sq->scmrq = NULL;
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> -	return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK;
> +	return BLK_STS_OK;
>  }
> 
>  static int scm_blk_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data,

This is the same patch I came up with to get it to compile. I asked
Sebastian to verify that the driver actually works with these changes.


-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

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

#1680758

FromMartin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Date2017-07-04 10:30 +0200
Message-ID<tZrnA-5Ps-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1680741
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 10:05:30 +0200
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:58:18 +1000
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Linus,
> > 
> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:46:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:  
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Martin Schwidefsky
> > > <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:    
> > > >
> > > > please pull from the 'for-linus' branch of
> > > >
> > > >         git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git for-linus      
> > > 
> > > So my conflict resolution looks different from the one Stephen posted,
> > > which may be due to various reasons, ranging from "linux-next has
> > > other things that conflict" to just "I didn't notice some semantic
> > > conflict since unlike linux-next I don't build for s390".
> > > 
> > > Regardless, you should check my current -git tree just to verify, and
> > > send me a patch if I screwed something up.    
> > 
> > At least part of the difference is the following merge fix patch I have
> > been carrying.  It is needed due to a build failure.
> > 
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:51:32 +1000
> > Subject: [PATCH] s390: fix up for "blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to
> >  blk_status_t"
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > ---
> >  drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c | 10 +++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> > index 42018a20f2b7..0071febac9e6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c
> > @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ struct scm_queue {
> >  	spinlock_t lock;
> >  };
> > 
> > -static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > +static blk_status_t scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> >  			   const struct blk_mq_queue_data *qd)
> >  {
> >  	struct scm_device *scmdev = hctx->queue->queuedata;
> > @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> >  	spin_lock(&sq->lock);
> >  	if (!scm_permit_request(bdev, req)) {
> >  		spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> > -		return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> > +		return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> >  	}
> > 
> >  	scmrq = sq->scmrq;
> > @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> >  		if (!scmrq) {
> >  			SCM_LOG(5, "no request");
> >  			spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> > -			return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> > +			return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> >  		}
> >  		scm_request_init(bdev, scmrq);
> >  		sq->scmrq = scmrq;
> > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > 
> >  		sq->scmrq = NULL;
> >  		spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> > -		return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY;
> > +		return BLK_STS_RESOURCE;
> >  	}
> >  	blk_mq_start_request(req);
> > 
> > @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> >  		sq->scmrq = NULL;
> >  	}
> >  	spin_unlock(&sq->lock);
> > -	return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK;
> > +	return BLK_STS_OK;
> >  }
> > 
> >  static int scm_blk_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data,  
> 
> This is the same patch I came up with to get it to compile. I asked
> Sebastian to verify that the driver actually works with these changes.

Looks good. Sebastian confirmed that the scm driver will be fine with the
add-on patch from Stephen.

@Linus:
I can add this to the s390 tree and sent the patch with the next please-pull.
Or you can apply the patch directly, whatever you prefer.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

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

#1681178

FromLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date2017-07-04 22:40 +0200
Message-ID<tZCM2-4Vk-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1680758
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Martin Schwidefsky
<schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> @Linus:
> I can add this to the s390 tree and sent the patch with the next please-pull.
> Or you can apply the patch directly, whatever you prefer.

I'll wait for your pull. Thanks,

                 Linus

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web