From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rdma tree with the nfsd tree Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:25:17 -0500 Message-ID: <20160106162517.GA13070@fieldses.org> References: <20151231133022.0b3ecab9@canb.auug.org.au> <20160104124450.7ba21c87@canb.auug.org.au> <5689DEA0.1020803@redhat.com> <20160104193616.GB30315@fieldses.org> <24AC8112-95A2-4D7B-8048-3D7D50A78B90@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:53947 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751862AbcAFQZS (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:25:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24AC8112-95A2-4D7B-8048-3D7D50A78B90@oracle.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Chuck Lever Cc: Doug Ledford , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML Kernel , Christoph Hellwig , Ira Weiny , Or Gerlitz On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:01:14AM -0500, Chuck Lever wrote: > Part of the plan was that Doug's tree would be merged before > Bruce's. But the above problem description looks like the > maintainer trees were merged into linux-next in the other order. The order makes no difference. The problem is that we had conflicting patches: I still had Christoph's patch, but Doug's tree did something different. (The only reason to care about merge order is that if I sent my pull request to Linus first, it would look like "here's the nfsd changes for 4.5. Oh, plus a bunch of rdma changes from Doug which he can explain later...". So it'd be best if the rdma changes were already in before I sent a pull request based on them.) > I'd like to make this simpler for everyone. Bruce, may I send > my for-4.5 NFS/RDMA server patches to Doug with your Acked-by? Sure, I'm fine with doing it either way. Feel free to add my Acked-by: to the patches you sent me before if that would simplify things. --b.