From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: axboe@kernel.dk (Jens Axboe)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:57:41 -0700
Subject: [PATCH][linux-block] NVMe: Fix FS mount issue(hot-remove followed
 by hot-add)
In-Reply-To: <000d01d015e8$5615a740$0240f5c0$@samsung.com>
References: <1418294839-3464-1-git-send-email-indraneel.m@samsung.com>
 <5489B791.7020007@kernel.dk> <000d01d015e8$5615a740$0240f5c0$@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <548B1075.5000304@kernel.dk>

On 12/12/2014 01:47 AM, Indraneel Mukherjee wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Linux-nvme [mailto:linux-nvme-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf
>> Of Jens Axboe
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:56 PM
>> To: Indraneel M; linux-nvme at lists.infradead.org; Keith Busch
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH][linux-block] NVMe: Fix FS mount issue(hot-remove
>> followed by hot-add)
>>
>> On 12/11/2014 03:47 AM, Indraneel M wrote:
>>> Jens, this version is against the linux-block tree.
>>
>> It's not, though:
>>
>> checking file drivers/block/nvme-core.c
>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 2600.
>> Hunk #2 FAILED at 2859.
>> 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED
>>
>> what branch are you on? It has to be against for-3.19/drivers or for-next.
> This
>> was simple enough to hand apply, so I did that. This is the result:
>>
>> http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-
>> block.git;a=commit;h=285dffc9101244ac65c29672a1fb3fe614b52238
>
>
> Thanks Jens! I had just cloned linux-block and created a patch against it
> without any branch switch.

It's not easy to know... Generally, if we're before a merge window, 
patches should be sent against for-3.x/drivers, where x is the next 
release. If we're after a merge window and it needs to go into this 
version, then patches should be against for-linus (which is generally 
pretty close to master).

-- 
Jens Axboe