From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: ["PATCH-v2" 00/22] lpfc updates for 11.2.0.12 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 23:22:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20170421062258.GA30237@infradead.org> References: <20170420220448.27095-1-jsmart2021@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:43818 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1033652AbdDUGXA (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:23:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: jsmart2021@gmail.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:52:13AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > The patches are dependent on the FC nvme/nvmet patches from the following 2 > > series: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2017-April/009250.html > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2017-April/009256.html > > Hmm, > > So it seems that we have conflicts here > > A local merge attempt on Jens's current for-4.12/block > from nvme-4.12 (with this patchset)is generating: The problem are two patches from the "nvme_fc: add ctlr reset support and abort fixes" series from James which conflict badly with the NVMe result/state rework in block/for-next. I will drop this series from nvme-4.12 for now, and rebase nvme-4.12 on top of Jens' for-4.12 tree so that we have a good base to start from. I think we can get James' patch in post-rc1 or wih a second pull request still. Also James once you do that please run the patches through sparse, there are a few warnings in the changes, although they mostly seem to replace old warnings with different ones.