Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752413AbdGDH61 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2017 03:58:27 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:32931 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752376AbdGDH60 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2017 03:58:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:58:18 +1000 From: Stephen Rothwell To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Martin Schwidefsky , linux-kernel , linux-s390 , Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] s390 patches for 4.13 merge window Message-ID: <20170704175818.771c7fb5@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: References: <20170703110134.11ff3478@mschwideX1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2686 Lines: 87 Hi Linus, On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:46:00 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Martin Schwidefsky > wrote: > > > > please pull from the 'for-linus' branch of > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/s390/linux.git for-linus > > So my conflict resolution looks different from the one Stephen posted, > which may be due to various reasons, ranging from "linux-next has > other things that conflict" to just "I didn't notice some semantic > conflict since unlike linux-next I don't build for s390". > > Regardless, you should check my current -git tree just to verify, and > send me a patch if I screwed something up. At least part of the difference is the following merge fix patch I have been carrying. It is needed due to a build failure. From: Stephen Rothwell Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:51:32 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] s390: fix up for "blk-mq: switch ->queue_rq return value to blk_status_t" Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell --- drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c index 42018a20f2b7..0071febac9e6 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c +++ b/drivers/s390/block/scm_blk.c @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ struct scm_queue { spinlock_t lock; }; -static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, +static blk_status_t scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, const struct blk_mq_queue_data *qd) { struct scm_device *scmdev = hctx->queue->queuedata; @@ -290,7 +290,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, spin_lock(&sq->lock); if (!scm_permit_request(bdev, req)) { spin_unlock(&sq->lock); - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY; + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE; } scmrq = sq->scmrq; @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, if (!scmrq) { SCM_LOG(5, "no request"); spin_unlock(&sq->lock); - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY; + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE; } scm_request_init(bdev, scmrq); sq->scmrq = scmrq; @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, sq->scmrq = NULL; spin_unlock(&sq->lock); - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY; + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE; } blk_mq_start_request(req); @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int scm_blk_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, sq->scmrq = NULL; } spin_unlock(&sq->lock); - return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK; + return BLK_STS_OK; } static int scm_blk_init_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, void *data, -- 2.11.0 -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell