[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1478621878.2824.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:17:58 -0800
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Gilad Broner <gbroner@...eaurora.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block tree
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 16:48 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e806402130c9 ("block: split out request-only flags into a new
> namespace")
>
> from the block tree and commit:
>
> 2266d5678ad1 ("scsi: ufs: fix sense buffer size to 18 bytes")
>
> from the scsi tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your
> tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise
> any particularly complex conflicts.
Thanks for doing this. I think this is exactly the type of easily
resolvable conflict Linus likes to fix himself, so keeping the trees
separate seems the best options.
Regards,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists