From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with Linus' tree Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:42:41 +0100 Message-ID: <4D749A81.50809@kernel.dk> References: <20110307131958.84a5d818.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20110307063618.GA10365@mtj.dyndns.org> 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]:40361 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751430Ab1CGImm (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Mar 2011 03:42:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20110307063618.GA10365@mtj.dyndns.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011-03-07 07:36, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Stephen, Jens. > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 01:19:58PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in >> block/blk-flush.c between commit 255bb490c8c27eed484d538efe6ef6a7473bd3f6 >> ("block: blk-flush shouldn't call directly into q->request_fn() >> __blk_run_queue()") from the tree and commit >> ae1b1539622fb46e51b4d13b3f9e5f4c713f86ae ("block: reimplement FLUSH/FUA >> to support merge") from the block tree. >> >> The latter rewrote a large part of the file, so I just used that. If >> this is not correct, please fix it up in the block tree. > > I sent Jens a merge commit which should fix this yesterday. > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1101766/focus=1108915 > > So, the merge problem should go away soonish. Merged now, so this conflict should be gone from linux-next as of now. -- Jens Axboe