From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] blk-mq: fix & improve queue quiescing To: Bart Van Assche , "ming.lei@redhat.com" Cc: "hch@infradead.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" References: <20170606152210.22806-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <08a2b32d-866e-a71f-4ac6-9c131edb88e2@fb.com> <20170613021518.GB15043@ming.t460p> <20170618202604.GA14417@kernel.dk> <1497827149.16169.1.camel@wdc.com> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <547999d5-8231-6dbd-3a79-0716dd070c9b@kernel.dk> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:48:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1497827149.16169.1.camel@wdc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: On 06/18/2017 05:05 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 14:26 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 13 2017, Ming Lei wrote: >>> If you are fine with 3-12, could you consider it for v4.13? >>> >>> The fixes on uses of blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() depends on >>> this patchset. >> >> Yes, I think it looks fine. I've applied the rest, except the nvme >> patch, which no longer applies since start/stop changes have been made >> there. Please resend that one against for-4.13/block, thanks. > > Hello Jens, > > Are you aware that these changes conflict with Martin's 4.13/scsi-queue > branch? Who should work on resolving this conflict? Nope. Not a huge problem - send it to Stephen since -next will see this conflict shortly. And then Martin should keep it handy for sending his pull request to Linus, as I always ship early. Longer term, basing the scsi tree on the block tree might not be a bad idea... -- Jens Axboe