Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the drbd tree got a conflicts in
fs/fs-writeback.c against the block tree.
It looks like the block tree has moved under the drbd tree again. I used
the version of this file from the block tree for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On 2010-06-10 05:52, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the drbd tree got a conflicts in
> fs/fs-writeback.c against the block tree.
>
> It looks like the block tree has moved under the drbd tree again. I used
> the version of this file from the block tree for today.
I'm starting to think that it would be a little easier if you did not
pull the drbd tree, I really should be pulling that into my -next branch
instead.
--
Jens Axboe
Hi Jens, Philipp,
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:35 +0200 Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm starting to think that it would be a little easier if you did not
> pull the drbd tree, I really should be pulling that into my -next branch
> instead.
Given that the drbd tree has not been updated to match the increasingly
different block tree, I have dropped it for today.
There a a few possibilities here:
- I just drop the drbd tree completely and it only gets merged
into the block tree.
- if the drbd tree doesn't actually depend on any of the features
in the block tree then it could be rebased onto Linus tree (and I would
cope with any merge fixups - as I do with many other trees).
- if it does depend on things in the block tree, those particular
features in the block tree could be put in a separate branch that is
never rebased and then that branch could be merged into both the block
and drbd trees (this has been done before e.g. stuff in the vfs tree.
- the drbd tree could be rebased on tom of the current block tree
(but then it must be kept up to date if the block tree is rebased).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
On 2010-06-14 03:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens, Philipp,
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:35 +0200 Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm starting to think that it would be a little easier if you did not
>> pull the drbd tree, I really should be pulling that into my -next branch
>> instead.
>
> Given that the drbd tree has not been updated to match the increasingly
> different block tree, I have dropped it for today.
>
> There a a few possibilities here:
> - I just drop the drbd tree completely and it only gets merged
> into the block tree.
> - if the drbd tree doesn't actually depend on any of the features
> in the block tree then it could be rebased onto Linus tree (and I would
> cope with any merge fixups - as I do with many other trees).
> - if it does depend on things in the block tree, those particular
> features in the block tree could be put in a separate branch that is
> never rebased and then that branch could be merged into both the block
> and drbd trees (this has been done before e.g. stuff in the vfs tree.
> - the drbd tree could be rebased on tom of the current block tree
> (but then it must be kept up to date if the block tree is rebased).
The thing with the dependencies is that sometimes they are true,
sometimes they are not. What I suggested to the drbd team is that they
always just base off Linus and then ask me to pull their changes, then I
will resolve any potential conflicts when that happens. The consequence
would be that you stop pulling the drbd tree separately.
--
Jens Axboe
Am Montag, 14. Juni 2010, um 11:08:28 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> On 2010-06-14 03:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Jens, Philipp,
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:35 +0200 Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I'm starting to think that it would be a little easier if you did not
> >> pull the drbd tree, I really should be pulling that into my -next branch
> >> instead.
> >
> > Given that the drbd tree has not been updated to match the increasingly
> > different block tree, I have dropped it for today.
> >
> > There a a few possibilities here:
> > - I just drop the drbd tree completely and it only gets merged
> >
> > into the block tree.
> >
> > - if the drbd tree doesn't actually depend on any of the features
> >
> > in the block tree then it could be rebased onto Linus tree (and I would
> > cope with any merge fixups - as I do with many other trees).
> >
> > - if it does depend on things in the block tree, those particular
> >
> > features in the block tree could be put in a separate branch that is
> > never rebased and then that branch could be merged into both the block
> > and drbd trees (this has been done before e.g. stuff in the vfs tree.
> >
> > - the drbd tree could be rebased on tom of the current block tree
> >
> > (but then it must be kept up to date if the block tree is rebased).
>
> The thing with the dependencies is that sometimes they are true,
> sometimes they are not. What I suggested to the drbd team is that they
> always just base off Linus and then ask me to pull their changes, then I
> will resolve any potential conflicts when that happens. The consequence
> would be that you stop pulling the drbd tree separately.
Ok, from now on I will use Linus most recent -rc as base and put DRBD
patches on top of that. -- I will do this today (CEST timezone).
Best,
Phil
--
: Dipl-Ing Philipp Reisner
: LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
: Tel: +43-1-8178292-50, Fax: +43-1-8178292-82
: http://www.linbit.com
DRBD(R) and LINBIT(R) are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.
On 2010-06-14 11:43, Philipp Reisner wrote:
> Am Montag, 14. Juni 2010, um 11:08:28 schrieb Jens Axboe:
>> On 2010-06-14 03:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Jens, Philipp,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:35 +0200 Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'm starting to think that it would be a little easier if you did not
>>>> pull the drbd tree, I really should be pulling that into my -next branch
>>>> instead.
>>>
>>> Given that the drbd tree has not been updated to match the increasingly
>>> different block tree, I have dropped it for today.
>>>
>>> There a a few possibilities here:
>>> - I just drop the drbd tree completely and it only gets merged
>>>
>>> into the block tree.
>>>
>>> - if the drbd tree doesn't actually depend on any of the features
>>>
>>> in the block tree then it could be rebased onto Linus tree (and I would
>>> cope with any merge fixups - as I do with many other trees).
>>>
>>> - if it does depend on things in the block tree, those particular
>>>
>>> features in the block tree could be put in a separate branch that is
>>> never rebased and then that branch could be merged into both the block
>>> and drbd trees (this has been done before e.g. stuff in the vfs tree.
>>>
>>> - the drbd tree could be rebased on tom of the current block tree
>>>
>>> (but then it must be kept up to date if the block tree is rebased).
>>
>> The thing with the dependencies is that sometimes they are true,
>> sometimes they are not. What I suggested to the drbd team is that they
>> always just base off Linus and then ask me to pull their changes, then I
>> will resolve any potential conflicts when that happens. The consequence
>> would be that you stop pulling the drbd tree separately.
>
> Ok, from now on I will use Linus most recent -rc as base and put DRBD
> patches on top of that. -- I will do this today (CEST timezone).
You want to continue to use for-2.6.xx for your next version updates, as
that has a larger risk of containing things you need to adapt to. But
for current version patches, Linus' branch is fine.
--
Jens Axboe
Am Montag, 14. Juni 2010, um 11:45:00 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> On 2010-06-14 11:43, Philipp Reisner wrote:
> > Am Montag, 14. Juni 2010, um 11:08:28 schrieb Jens Axboe:
> >> On 2010-06-14 03:26, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >>> Hi Jens, Philipp,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:35 +0200 Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> I'm starting to think that it would be a little easier if you did not
> >>>> pull the drbd tree, I really should be pulling that into my -next
> >>>> branch instead.
> >>>
> >>> Given that the drbd tree has not been updated to match the increasingly
> >>> different block tree, I have dropped it for today.
> >>>
> >>> There a a few possibilities here:
> >>> - I just drop the drbd tree completely and it only gets merged
> >>>
> >>> into the block tree.
> >>>
> >>> - if the drbd tree doesn't actually depend on any of the features
> >>>
> >>> in the block tree then it could be rebased onto Linus tree (and I would
> >>> cope with any merge fixups - as I do with many other trees).
> >>>
> >>> - if it does depend on things in the block tree, those particular
> >>>
> >>> features in the block tree could be put in a separate branch that is
> >>> never rebased and then that branch could be merged into both the block
> >>> and drbd trees (this has been done before e.g. stuff in the vfs tree.
> >>>
> >>> - the drbd tree could be rebased on tom of the current block tree
> >>>
> >>> (but then it must be kept up to date if the block tree is rebased).
> >>
> >> The thing with the dependencies is that sometimes they are true,
> >> sometimes they are not. What I suggested to the drbd team is that they
> >> always just base off Linus and then ask me to pull their changes, then I
> >> will resolve any potential conflicts when that happens. The consequence
> >> would be that you stop pulling the drbd tree separately.
> >
> > Ok, from now on I will use Linus most recent -rc as base and put DRBD
> > patches on top of that. -- I will do this today (CEST timezone).
>
> You want to continue to use for-2.6.xx for your next version updates, as
> that has a larger risk of containing things you need to adapt to. But
> for current version patches, Linus' branch is fine.
Ok, so I will have a for-jens and a for-jens-next branch. Where for-jens
is based on Linus' branch, and for-jens-next is based on your for-2.6.xx.
Best,
Phil
--
: Dipl-Ing Philipp Reisner
: LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
: Tel: +43-1-8178292-50, Fax: +43-1-8178292-82
: http://www.linbit.com
DRBD(R) and LINBIT(R) are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.