From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: danielroschka@phoenitydawn.de (Daniel Roschka) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:10:33 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL] nvme patches for 4.11 In-Reply-To: References: <1487791916-25599-1-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> <6e829c66-8ebf-9aff-a14f-8031ba891876@kernel.dk> Message-ID: <12639552.D9MSj1FbeR@buzzard> On Wednesday, 22. February 2017, 20:41:11 CET you wrote: > A few issues with this: > > - It throws a merge conflict. No big deal, that was easy enough > to fix up. > > - What is this based on? Looks like some version of my for-next, > but ends up duplicating 4 patches from me. I don't remember > if I rebased my for-next this time around, but I often do. It's > not a stable branch like the for-4.xx/topic branches. > > - Out of 22 patches, one commit reverts another commit. That should > just have been squashed. > > I ended up simply fixing all of that up, and generating the patches > and applying. Otherwise the whole history would have been a mess. Urgs, I don't know what went wrong with the pull request from Sagi, but at least the change in there I authored is fundamently different from what I submitted! Looking at git://git.infradead.org/nvme.git nvme-4.11, instead of my original patch adding a device ID for another NVMe controller for MacBooks, this branch replaces the original entry! That'd be a regression for all MacBook8,1 out there! See http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-linus&id=4f6cc1c29b0b5d3a964d5ad0cbe7c48e6c44686f vs. http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2017-February/008323.html How do we get that fixed? Best, Daniel