From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "ira.weiny" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Clean up SDMA engine code Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:48:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20151221234803.GL3860@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> References: <1449612613-6616-1-git-send-email-ira.weiny@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1449612613-6616-1-git-send-email-ira.weiny@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, dledford@redhat.com List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:10:08PM -0500, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > From: Ira Weiny > > 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. Thanks, Ira > > --- > Changes from V1: > Fix off by one error in the last patch > > Mitko Haralanov (5): > 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 > > drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/file_ops.c | 11 +- > drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/hfi.h | 4 +- > drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/user_pages.c | 97 +++------- > drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/user_sdma.c | 319 +++++++++++++++++++-------------- > drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/user_sdma.h | 2 + > 5 files changed, 222 insertions(+), 211 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.8.2 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html