Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933054AbcLMUT1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:19:27 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]:33468 "EHLO mail-io0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932652AbcLMUTZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:19:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block core changes for 4.10 To: Linus Torvalds References: <6176de36-7f4f-040b-f277-e872cc98eb5e@kernel.dk> Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:19:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6176de36-7f4f-040b-f277-e872cc98eb5e@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1122 Lines: 30 On 12/11/2016 06:52 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > Note that this pull will throw 3 trivial merge conflicts, since we had > patches that went into mainline after 4.9-rc1 (upon which this branch is > based), and one that will not show up in block/blk-flush.c. The latter > is due to a fix that went in for the flush code using an old request > flag that is now changed to a per-request one. To ensure that this all > goes smoothly, I just merged 4.9 with this branch and provide that as a > reference: > > git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block.git for-4.10/merge > > But really, the only one you to watch for is this line in > block/blk-flush.c: > > /* for avoiding double accounting */ > rq->cmd_flags &= ~REQ_STARTED; > > which should now be: > > rq->rq_flags &= ~RQF_STARTED; > > and the three merge conflicts that do show up are trivially resolvable. Since you have merged trees since that contain block drivers, you are going to get a new merge conflict. There's one with mmc block now, which is again just a switch from rq->cmd_flags to rq->rq_flags and using RQF_foo instead of REQ_foo. -- Jens Axboe