From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the tip tree Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:52:16 -0500 Message-ID: <1484916736.3011.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <20170120142343.3d2e72af@canb.auug.org.au> <20170120063552.GA14142@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170120063552.GA14142@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Martin K. Petersen" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 07:35 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi James, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in: > > > > drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c > > > > between commit: > > > > e963b7088dac ("scsi: mpt3sas: Fix hang on ata passthru commands") > > > > from the tip tree and commit: > > > > ffb584565894 ("scsi: mpt3sas: fix hang on ata passthrough > > commands") > > > > from the scsi tree. > > > > I fixed it up (slightly different versions of the same patch - I > > used the latter version) 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 or merging. You may also want to consider > > cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise > > any particularly complex conflicts. > > I only had that patch for testing and it went into the -next branch > by accident - I have removed it so the conflict should be gone next > time -next is integrated. Thanks for testing. There was a last minute fuss about whether the flag should be checked using a test_bit rather than a straight read, which is the difference between the two versions. James