From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Gilad Broner <gbroner@codeaurora.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block tree
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 08:17:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1478621878.2824.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161108164804.0aef27e8@canb.auug.org.au>
On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 16:48 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e806402130c9 ("block: split out request-only flags into a new
> namespace")
>
> from the block tree and commit:
>
> 2266d5678ad1 ("scsi: ufs: fix sense buffer size to 18 bytes")
>
> from the scsi tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your
> tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
> cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise
> any particularly complex conflicts.
Thanks for doing this. I think this is exactly the type of easily
resolvable conflict Linus likes to fix himself, so keeping the trees
separate seems the best options.
Regards,
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-08 16:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-08 5:48 linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the block tree Stephen Rothwell
2016-11-08 16:17 ` James Bottomley [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-06-19 5:35 Stephen Rothwell
2017-06-21 5:55 Stephen Rothwell
2019-02-18 5:10 Stephen Rothwell
2019-04-15 5:59 Stephen Rothwell
2019-04-15 13:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-04-17 19:11 ` Martin Wilck
2020-03-25 5:04 Stephen Rothwell
2021-08-24 6:32 Stephen Rothwell
2021-08-24 6:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-01 5:08 Stephen Rothwell
2022-03-07 4:14 Stephen Rothwell
2022-03-07 4:18 Stephen Rothwell
2023-06-19 3:14 Stephen Rothwell
2025-01-07 4:09 Stephen Rothwell
2025-01-07 6:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1478621878.2824.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=gbroner@codeaurora.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=subhashj@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox