linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Core block IO bits for 3.15-rc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140402170108.GD16397@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 2 Apr 2014 19:01:11 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linuxpatches@...ups.facebook.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Core block IO bits for 3.15-rc

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:02:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/