Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932659AbaDBRBT (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2014 13:01:19 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]:51175 "EHLO mail-we0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932413AbaDBRBP (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Apr 2014 13:01:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 19:01:11 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jens Axboe , Jan Kara , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linuxpatches@star.c10r.facebook.com Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Core block IO bits for 3.15-rc Message-ID: <20140402170108.GD16397@localhost.localdomain> References: <20140401190502.GA30970@kernel.dk> <20140402135959.GA16397@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:02:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > So yeah that's because I was worried about strong conflicts. What kind of approach > > do you prefer then to solve that kind of issue? Do you prefer that we create a seperate > > branch and deal with non trivial nor small conflicts on merge window time? > > I'd indeed rather see a separate branch, and deal with the conflicts. > > And in fact I think you over-estimate the conflicts. The smp function > naming changes were trivial as far as outside users were concerned, > and while the "stop abusing fileds in csd" might have clashed more > with the rest of the block changes (because they were actually to the > block functions), I doubt it would have been painful. In fact, looking > at "fifo_time" there should be no conflicts at all, and the queuelist > changes look like they would have had a *trivial* conflict with > "blk-mq: merge blk_mq_insert_request and blk_mq_run_request" just > because there were changes nearby. Even that is debatable - it's > possible git would just have resolved that one automatically too. > > So I think that the patches from you and Honza could easily have been > in another branch, and had trivial or no conflicts with the other > block changes. > > Linus Yeah indeed. I think maybe I started to work on top of a stale tree and got confused with conflicts against pre v3.13 commits that were actually merged upstream for a while already. But you're right, looking at it closer, the real conflicts against pending -block patches weren't that bad actually Anyway, thanks for pulling it in the end, I'll be more careful! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/