From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:57:44 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jens Axboe Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Keith Busch , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Sagi Grimberg , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] nvme update for Linux 4.14 Message-ID: <20170828175744.GA26713@infradead.org> References: <20170828143343.evhchzfzam3whgwm@infradead.org> <199590da-6ff8-24de-abca-00f23608b93b@kernel.dk> <20170828155336.GA5302@infradead.org> <3c45e618-6a96-6443-258a-dac8f93ccc7a@kernel.dk> <20170828155925.GA32254@infradead.org> <44a35d51-48d5-7181-df7e-b75fcbc053d9@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <44a35d51-48d5-7181-df7e-b75fcbc053d9@kernel.dk> List-ID: On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 10:03:39AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > But one rock is shittier than the other. If you based it against > 4.14, then at least I only have to resolve the the problem once. > > The real problem is that the patch that went into master had > cleanups too. You should push back against that, since it will > inevitably cause problems by diverging 4.13 and 4.14 more than > absolutely necessary. Having conflicts in nvme for the block tree > is not isolated to this series, unfortunately. Given that the update doesn't appear to be in your for-next branch yet: do you want me to rebase it and resend?