Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: remove last remaining traces of IDE documentation

[Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>]

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 11:32:41AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: remove last remaining traces of IDE documentation] On 29/04/2022 (Fri 00:43) Phillip Potter wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:59:17PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > [Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: remove last remaining traces of IDE documentation] On 27/04/2022 (Wed 08:50) Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The Documentation/ide part of this is already dealt with in docs-next;
> > > > obviously there was more to do, though :)
> > > 
> > > Ah, I'd checked mainline master of today but not sfr's next.
> > > 
> > > Here is a delta diff against today's linux-next
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paul.
> > > --
> > > 
> > > From ecb86eb357e5151ba5f7e7d172c65d07d88c4c39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:45:50 -0400
> > > Subject: [PATCH -next] Documentation: remove last remaining traces of IDE
> > >  information
> > > 
> > > The last traces of the IDE driver went away in commit b7fb14d3ac63
> > > ("ide: remove the legacy ide driver") but it left behind some traces
> > > of old documentation.
> > > 
> > > As luck would have it Randy and I would submit similar changes within
> > > a week of each other to address this.  As Randy's commit is in the doc
> > > tree already - this delta is just the stuff my removal contained that
> > > was not in Randy's IDE doc removal.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > Apologies if I'm missing something, but this updated diff still seems to
> > conflict with Randy's earlier one. As cdrom doesn't get a lot of churn,
> > I agreed with Jens that I would usually just send on all accepted
> > patches at once to him and he would take them via his tree (I currently
> > have four accepted patches, including your two others and Randy's patch,
> > plus one other).
> > 
> > Anyhow, please could this be corrected? Or me shown the error of my ways
> > (always possible I'm making a mistake) :-) Many thanks.
> 
> Are you working off linux-next?  If not, what is your baseline and what
> are you running and what do you see?  For example, the commands below:
> 
> The ecb86 that I sent in this e-mail still applies on linux-next of
> today which contains Jens next as you can seed:
> 

I was yes, the point I was trying to make (poorly) is that your patch
conflicts with Randy's patch which itself is not yet in linux-next, as
normally I send everything together at the start of the merge window to
Jens, as I don't have my own kernel.org tree yet, and usually I only get
one or two patches in a cycle anyway.

This is not your fault, you couldn't have been expected to know this in
retrospect, and I should probably look into getting my own tree/GPG key
sorted to alleviate this problem in future.

In the meantime, if you're comfortable with the idea, I can just resolve
the conflict myself when I send the patches onto Jens this time and
include patch 3/3 pre-fixed up. Merge window will be fairly soon anyway.

Thanks,
Phil