Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1618483 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-07 07:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-04-07 22:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the char-misc tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-04-07 07:40 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the char-misc tree Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> - 2017-04-07 21:30 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the char-misc tree Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> - 2017-04-07 22:00 +0200
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-07 07:40 +0200 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the char-misc tree |
| Message-ID | <ttuMO-2Vb-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Martin,
Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
between commit:
ac1ddc584e98 ("scsi: utilize new cdev_device_add helper function")
from the char-misc tree and commit:
c02465fa13b6 ("scsi: osd_uld: Check scsi_device_get() return value")
from the scsi-mkp tree.
I am not sure how to resolve this, so I have just effectively recerted
the latter commit fo today. Better suggestions welcome.
I fixed it up 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]
| From | Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-07 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ttHK1-3kh-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1618483 |
Hi Bart, On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two > patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and reworked > after Logan's patches are upstream? Yeah, Greg took my patchset around a few maintainers relatively quickly. This is the second conflict, so sorry about that. Looks like the easiest thing would be to just base your change off of mine. It doesn't look too difficult. If you can do it before my patch hits upstream, I'd appreciate some testing and/or review as no one from the scsi side responded and that particular patch was a bit more involved than I would have liked. Thanks, Logan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-07 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ttId4-3zS-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1619055 |
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 13:29 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two > > patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and reworked > > after Logan's patches are upstream? > > Yeah, Greg took my patchset around a few maintainers relatively quickly. > This is the second conflict, so sorry about that. Looks like the easiest > thing would be to just base your change off of mine. It doesn't look too > difficult. If you can do it before my patch hits upstream, I'd > appreciate some testing and/or review as no one from the scsi side > responded and that particular patch was a bit more involved than I would > have liked. Boaz, had you noticed Logan's osd patch? If not, can you have a look? Thanks, Bart.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web