From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 08:22:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20080905062237.GM20055@kernel.dk> References: <20080905161212.e3612601.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:56428 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752002AbYIEGWm (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2008 02:22:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080905161212.e3612601.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , Mike Christie , James Bottomley On Fri, Sep 05 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in > include/linux/bio.h and include/linux/blkdev.h between commit > 81449f3f2013d92ec3bcb9d2c1877ce3140d2271 ("[SCSI] block: separate > failfast into multiple bits") from the scsi tree and commit > 5d112a624058caabe5b570d2c9827bce82c18be1 ("Add 'discard' request > handling") from the block tree. > > Overlapping changes/additions to some bit definitions. I have fixed it > up as best I can (see below) and can carry the fix. James, would it not have been a lot better to carry the block bits in the block tree instead?? -- Jens Axboe