From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boaz Harrosh Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the char-misc tree Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:31:17 +0300 Message-ID: <1102ca05-a6ea-156e-eddf-1073aa082e66@electrozaur.com> References: <20170407153351.0ecafd59@canb.auug.org.au> <47b500d6-0700-812f-dda3-44a14014b66e@sandisk.com> <1491594657.2559.24.camel@sandisk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1491594657.2559.24.camel@sandisk.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bart Van Assche , "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" , "logang@deltatee.com" , "greg@kroah.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "arnd@arndb.de" Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "openosd@gmail.com" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 04/07/2017 10:50 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 13:29 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >> On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two >>> patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and reworked >>> after Logan's patches are upstream? >> >> Yeah, Greg took my patchset around a few maintainers relatively quickly. >> This is the second conflict, so sorry about that. Looks like the easiest >> thing would be to just base your change off of mine. It doesn't look too >> difficult. If you can do it before my patch hits upstream, I'd >> appreciate some testing and/or review as no one from the scsi side >> responded and that particular patch was a bit more involved than I would >> have liked. > > Boaz, had you noticed Logan's osd patch? If not, can you have a look? > I did look, I even sent an ACK on one of the early versions. The merge breakage is more of a build issue because I never had get_device fail for me in my testing so it is more academic. Yes they both look fine BTW Boaz > Thanks, > Bart. >