Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Clean up SDMA engine code

Greg KH
2015-12-22T00:13:49Z

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:48:03PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:10:08PM -0500, ira.weiny-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> >
> > Various improvements to the SDMA engine code.
>
> Greg,
>
> Thanks for reviewing and accepting our patches to staging-testing. I apologize
> for the conflicts we had between the 3 of us submitting. However, in
> attempting to rework an internal branch to ensure this does not happen again I
> believe there were more conflicts than their should have been due to patches
> being accepted out of order.
>
> For example, I found the following error in your staging tree below.
>
> This series you applied in the following order which causes a build failure on
> the middle commit -- a0d4069.
>
> 483119a staging/rdma/hfi1: Unconditionally clean-up SDMA queues
> def8228 staging/rdma/hfi1: Convert to use get_user_pages_fast
> a0d4069 staging/rdma/hfi1: Add page lock limit check for SDMA requests
> faa98b8 staging/rdma/hfi1: Clean-up unnecessary goto statements
> 6a5464f staging/rdma/hfi1: Detect SDMA transmission error early
>
> The order as submitted was:
>
> staging/rdma/hfi1: Convert to use get_user_pages_fast
> staging/rdma/hfi1: Unconditionally clean-up SDMA queues
> staging/rdma/hfi1: Clean-up unnecessary goto statements
> staging/rdma/hfi1: Detect SDMA transmission error early
> staging/rdma/hfi1: Add page lock limit check for SDMA requests
>
>
>
> Do I need to resolve this somehow? Or is this something you resolve while the
> patches are in staging-testing?
>
> Is there something we need to do in the cover letter of a patch series to
> ensure order? Perhaps my cover letter implied these were not ordered? If so,
> I again apologize.

Did you number your patches? That's the only way to ensure that they
are applied in the correct order, that's what I sort on to apply them.
If you don't order them, I randomly guess, or just reject them...

All seems to build now, right?

thanks,

greg k-h