From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi-mkp tree with the block tree Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:55:24 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20161109135414.283a9ac5@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:40209 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934931AbcKKTzk (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:55:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20161109135414.283a9ac5@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:54:14 +1100") Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Jens Axboe , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Rothwell writes: Stephen, Stephen> This latter commit also exists as commit 2266d5678ad1 in the Stephen> scsi tree, but unfortunately, the scsi-mkp tree was rebased Stephen> overnight, so now the two patches are not the same commit :-( A Stephen> significant path of what was rebased overnight has already been Stephen> merged into the scsi tree ... so please tidy up your tree WRT Stephen> the scsi tree. This conflict would not exist if the rebase had Stephen> not been done. James' tree is usually a week or two behind mine. I almost never rebase mid-cycle but in this case we had a data corruption bug fix that went to Linus for 4.9 that a driver update depended on. In any case. It seems like the fact that the two SCSI trees may be out of sync could be an ongoing problem. So maybe you should just drop my tree again. I was just hoping to get visibility into potential merge problems sooner... -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering