From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] block: cleanup patches, take#2
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:19:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49C18F8B.8090306@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200903181817.11456.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Hello,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>> Heh... for some reason, I think Stephen wouldn't have much problem
>> merging those conflicts.
>
> Well, you can just ask Stephen if he is fine with fixing merge conflicts
> for a week or so. If he agrees fine with me. I just wouldn't like to see
> the _whole_ tree dropped from linux-next because of the last moment block
> _cleanup_ patches.
Okay, let's postpone them to .31 window.
>> I understand that you're constrained time and resource-wise and will
>> be happy to make things easier on your side but options are severely
>> limited if you don't want to take any changes other than from
>> upstream. It would be best if you can maintain IDE changes in a git
>> tree. All that you lose are petty controls over change history. The
>> tree might look less tidy but it makes things much easier when
>> multiple trees are involved. I'll be happy to provide merge commits
>
> I have been planning on quilt -> git conversion of pata-2.6 tree for some
> time now but these merge conflicts happen very seldom (once in 6-12 months)
> while the transition period would require quite a lot of time and work...
>
> Anyway point taken.
Ah... that sounds great. Yeah, conversion does take time and effort
to get accustomed to, but I think it will be well worth the while.
>> between blk and ide at sync points, so that you can pull from them and
>> don't have to worry about conflicts. I don't really think it will add
>> a lot to your workload.
>>
>> That said, let's postpone this patchset post -rc1 window and see how
>> things can be worked out then. Hmmm... I'll move the IDE patches on
>> top of linux-next/pata-2.6 with other IDE patches.
>
> Please do and thanks for understanding.
>
> I think that we can deal with the rest of patches without a problem in the
> second week of the merge window so everything will be nicely sorted out by
> the time of -rc1.
Thanks. Much appreciated. I'll send IDE patchset in a few days.
--
tejun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-19 0:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-16 2:28 [GIT PATCH] block: cleanup patches, take#2 Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 01/17] ide: use blk_run_queue() instead of blk_start_queueing() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 02/17] ide: don't set REQ_SOFTBARRIER Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 03/17] ide: use blk_update_request() instead of blk_end_request_callback() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 04/17] block: merge blk_invoke_request_fn() into __blk_run_queue() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 05/17] block: kill blk_start_queueing() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 06/17] block: don't set REQ_NOMERGE unnecessarily Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 07/17] block: cleanup REQ_SOFTBARRIER usages Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 08/17] block: clean up misc stuff after block layer timeout conversion Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 09/17] block: reorder request completion functions Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 10/17] block: reorganize request fetching functions Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 11/17] block: kill blk_end_request_callback() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 12/17] block: clean up request completion API Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 13/17] block: move rq->start_time initialization to blk_rq_init() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 14/17] block: implement and use [__]blk_end_request_all() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 15/17] block: kill end_request() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 3:23 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-16 3:27 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-21 2:58 ` Tejun Heo
2009-03-24 11:37 ` Jens Axboe
2009-03-24 13:07 ` Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 16/17] ubd: simplify block request completion Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:29 ` [PATCH 17/17] block: clean up unnecessary stuff from block drivers Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 17:53 ` [GIT PATCH] block: cleanup patches, take#2 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-03-17 0:10 ` Tejun Heo
2009-03-18 17:17 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-03-19 0:19 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49C18F8B.8090306@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bzolnier@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.