From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the s390 tree Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:17:59 +0200 Message-ID: <4C738037.20201@kernel.dk> References: <20100824105328.9bf22335.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100824091344.3945ccdc@mschwide.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from 0122700014.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.99.235]:55852 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751207Ab0HXIRp (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:17:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100824091344.3945ccdc@mschwide.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Martin Schwidefsky Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Oberparleiter , Heiko Carstens On 2010-08-24 09:13, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:53:28 +1000 > Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> Hi Jens, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in >> drivers/s390/char/tape_block.c between commit >> 7dc74a8fdb22f4410a2d8e45353c9ea75821a9ba ("[S390] tape: fix kernel panic >> when setting tape device offline") from the s390 tree and commit >> 52cc2eef31587b22ce9fbe77b064a031a9613ab0 ("block: switch s390 tape_block >> and mg_disk to elevator_change()") from the block tree. >> >> I assume that the latter removes the need for the former, so I used that. > > The patch in the block tree includes the fix for the s390 tape driver. > So I guess its best if I remove the s390 specific patch from the > git390 tree. > Probably best, since the change in my tree is different from the one you likely merged. So it will clash, as Stephen also reports. -- Jens Axboe