Re: [PATCH-v2 0/6] vhost/scsi: Add T10 PI SGL passthrough support

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:52:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:42:54 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I see two options:
> > - I go ahead with my changes and you with yours and let Linus resolve
> >   the conflict.  This means bisect build will be broken since the
> >   breakage will likely not be noticed until after the merge.
> 
> Well, since the resolution is known, the one who submits their tree
> later should tell Linus (as suggested by Nicholas).  That is part of
> the point of the linux-next tree ... and therefore there would be no
> bisect problem.
> 
> > > Stephen (CC'ed) has included a fix in today's linux-next for the merge
> > > conflict here:
> > > 
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/3
> > > 
> > > Please confirm, as it will be a pointer to Linus within the
> > > target-pending/for-next PULL request.
> > 
> > Yes but this does mean people trying to bisect will
> > hit build breakages, not nice.
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au


I don't see how that's possible.
Here's a point you might have missed.
Nicholas's patch isn't just introducing a merge conflict.
It is also buggy.
Replacing bit access with has_feature silently fixes the bug.

So if we want to avoid bisect breakage target tree will
have to be rebased.

And if doing that anyway, I don't see any reason not
to merge everything through the vhost tree, esp
since I already put the patches there. Less work for
everyone involved.

-- 
MST