From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 04:54:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20150127045422.GY29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20150127145754.03e711a3@canb.auug.org.au> <54C70D52.6030208@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:42675 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751350AbbA0Ey1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jan 2015 23:54:27 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54C70D52.6030208@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jens Axboe Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Ming Lei On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 09:00:18PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 01/26/2015 08:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >Hi Jens, > > > >Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in > >drivers/block/loop.c between commit c2ca80413553 ("loop: convert to > >vfs_iter_read/write") from the vfs tree and commit b5dd2f6047ca > >("block: loop: improve performance via blk-mq") and several others from > >the block tree. > > > >I have no idea how fixed it up so I just used the version of the file > >from the block tree (its been there a while). Please have a chat and > >figure out how to combine these two large changes. > > Why isn't the loop patch in the block tree? That'd avoid such > incidents. We could add a dependency for the required VFS patch. I don't mind opening a never-rebased branch for generic iov_iter-related stuff; if you prefer to handle it that way - just tell. The first two patches from that series would definitely go there; as for the rest... no preferences here.