[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51a599a0-0952-ced1-ad78-89012c46f5eb@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:38:43 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, <axboe@...nel.dk>,
<jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
<don.brace@...rosemi.com>, <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>,
<ming.lei@...hat.com>, <bvanassche@....org>,
<dgilbert@...erlog.com>, <paolo.valente@...aro.org>, <hch@....de>
CC: <sumit.saxena@...adcom.com>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
<esc.storagedev@...rosemi.com>, <megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com>,
<chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>, <luojiaxing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/18] blk-mq/scsi: Provide hostwide shared tags for
SCSI HBAs
On 08/09/2020 13:46, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Now that Jens merged the block bits in his tree, wouldn't it be better
> to re-send the SCSI bits only, thereby avoiding a potential merge error
> later on?
>
Anything which I resend would need to be against Jens' tree (and not
Martin's), assuming Jens will carry them also. So I am not sure how that
will help.
JFYI, I just tested against today's linux-next, and the SCSI parts (hpsa
and smartpqi omitted) still apply there without conflict.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists