From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the rdma-fixes tree Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 10:00:52 -0400 Message-ID: <1525269652.11756.134.camel@redhat.com> References: <20180501101017.517b38af@canb.auug.org.au> <1525136135.11756.94.camel@redhat.com> <20180502102237.GG20375@mtr-leonro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-eMP6AqRXDUkEHD4UIcWj" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180502102237.GG20375@mtr-leonro.local> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Jason Gunthorpe , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Zhu Yanjun List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --=-eMP6AqRXDUkEHD4UIcWj Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 13:22 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:55:35PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-05-01 at 10:10 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > >=20 > > > Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got a conflict in: > > >=20 > > > drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_resp.c > > >=20 > > > between commit: > > >=20 > > > 9fd4350ba895 ("B/rxe: avoid double kfree_skb") > > >=20 > > > from the rdma-fixes tree and commit: > > >=20 > > > 2e47350789eb ("IB/rxe: optimize the function duplicate_request") > > >=20 > > > from the rdma tree. > > >=20 > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessar= y. > > > This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non triv= ial > > > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your t= ree > > > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > > > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particula= rly > > > complex conflicts. > > >=20 > >=20 > > We will probably merge the for-rc branch into the for-next branch in th= e > > next few days, at which point we will do the conflict resolution > > ourselves and your need to carry anything should drop out. >=20 > Isn't "rdma/wip/for-testing" branch intended for this? Not really. It's there to provide a pre-merged branch for people to test. But, I've rarely seen a release cycle where, *sometime*, we didn't get a patch set in the for-next that depends on changes in the for-rc area, and in that case, you need to merge for-rc into for-next.=20 If we don't have that this cycle, then you're right, I won't merge for- rc into for-next and for-testing will be the throwaway merge branch. On occasion, if the merge fixups needed between for-rc and for-next get too difficult for a non-RDMA person to sus out, then we will do a merge of for-rc into for-next simply so we can provide the right merge fixup, but I doubt this merge fixup rises to that level. --=20 Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD Key fingerprint =3D AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD --=-eMP6AqRXDUkEHD4UIcWj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEErmsb2hIrI7QmWxJ0uCajMw5XL90FAlrpxJQACgkQuCajMw5X L934eBAAjucQJds1M425l/yZ0FBrq7ZAmx/z+HaSyTbzk+0vjeSXEnKNWKhS3VNH MeR13EfT1Jag2e8+WvbetjGEL+fIjZxKVCER0cT9+tJPXaK+kzGlLwsVXcPAbNeX iAIxOcgh6DQWQ5jU0dfkQdj8omEC8lEZOkY5uGWgqrwtWTAdAQgVPnxJ7cADprGf 1tX9M3GyLU44WCOrxx6UYi1TRJ67ulmwJWaSH7mRocBwvSWaz79phAgVPj9NqJAi 4492FxReszSK0IUl6ckKIGgQKGqPXimyh5Si6Pg1snlsnUMbHsqxPdmWQ11f/7c7 smVT6sh8lTMa2DZj34754dpyRVl9c2l61stjYEeho4LqIGQma+VFmHhSsg5j0+pS tS88NWmzO2pD9xWBMKkfzmn1N//X+ZClH6IvLzvcQHH/MaKNGBXM6yJ7ONNR8Xsl G0TbtG3UpeipO3SAQ02oVV/53zxRmIV7+iKhHMboEmwLOwW0EVZ7x/mE3htNHMdy 3NDEN/B5zrpx/61B9vTzxlVBQQwj6qkqBqjA8wXZHUuKJtqeW151g03gbcItEerT jt7+7wDstW0YfToOumPt9TlfUI2SorXzan9TAHPyUEGW4jaVdNWk9IH2dVgB1ksN gFxN2rhQnyeESqfBE8O0CISsmAMphF0ws6yDtF/dXnNEsrW9QJ8= =rqS9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-eMP6AqRXDUkEHD4UIcWj--