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
On 04/06/2017 10:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> 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.
(+linux-scsi)
Hello Martin,
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?
Thanks,
Bart.
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
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.
Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> writes:
> 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?
Obviously things break the minute you go on vacation. I'm back
now. What's the current status?
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 21:00 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Bart Van Assche <[email protected]> writes:
> > 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?
>
> Obviously things break the minute you go on vacation. I'm back
> now. What's the current status?
Hello Martin,
Logan's patch series has been queued by Greg KH for kernel 4.12. So Linus
will have to resolve the merge conflict between Greg's char-misc tree and
the SCSI tree during the 4.12 merge window. See also
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git/log/?h=char-misc-next&ofs=250
Bart.
On 04/07/2017 10:50 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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?
>
I did look, I even sent an ACK on one of the early versions.
The merge breakage is more of a build issue because I never
had get_device fail for me in my testing so it is more
academic.
Yes they both look fine BTW
Boaz
> Thanks,
> Bart.
>