From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:07:45 -0500 Message-ID: <52741821.2070405@oracle.com> References: <20131101142026.10390b6e3f70de348770c137@canb.auug.org.au> <5273C473.5070803@kernel.dk> <20131102072252.88d2380fa392705b912dbfad@canb.auug.org.au> <52740EB1.2070901@kernel.dk> <527411DD.7050008@oracle.com> <527414DE.9090704@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:34278 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753060Ab3KAVH7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Nov 2013 17:07:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <527414DE.9090704@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jens Axboe , Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zach Brown , Kent Overstreet On 11/01/2013 03:53 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 11/01/2013 02:41 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >> On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>> Hi Jens, >>>> >>>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in >>>>>> drivers/block/loop.c between commit 2486740b52fd ("loop: use aio to >>>>>> perform io on the underlying file") from the aio-direct tree and commit >>>>>> ed2d2f9a8265 ("block: Abstract out bvec iterator") from the block tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> I fixed it up (I think - see below - I have also attached the final >>>>>> resulting file) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is >>>>>> required). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What tree is this from? It'd be a lot more convenient to fold that loop >>>>> patch into my tree, especially since the block tree in linux-next failed >>>>> after this merge. >>>> >>>> I can only agree with you. It is from the aio-direct tree (probably >>>> misnamed by me) (git://github.com/kleikamp/linux-shaggy.git#for-next) run >>>> by Dave Kleikamp. >>> >>> Dave, input requested. >>> >>> In any case, I would suggest dropping the aio-direct tree instead of the >>> entire block tree for coverage purposes, if merge or build failures >>> happen because of it. >> >> I've had these patches in linux-next since August, and I'd really like >> to push them in the 3.13 merge window. >> >> Are there other problems besides this merge issue? I'll take a closer >> look at Stephen's merge patch and see if I find any other issues, but I >> really don't want to pull these patches out of linux-next now. > > I'm not saying that the patches should be dropped or not go into 3.13. > What I'm saying is that if the choice is between having the bio and > blk-mq stuff in linux-next or an addon to the loop driver, the decision > should be quite clear. > > So we've three immediate options: > > 1) You base it on top of the block tree I could do that. > 2) I carry the loop updates The patch is the 17th of the patch set and will break things without most if not all of the preceding patches which hit a lot of fs code. > 3) You hand Stephen a merge patch for the resulting merge of the two I can do that too. > It's one of the problems with too-many-tree, imho. You end up with > dependencies that could have been solved if the work had been applied in > the right upstream tree. Sometimes that's not even enough though, if you > end up crossing boundaries. This patch set does cross boundaries. Dave