From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758654AbZCRRP7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:15:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753216AbZCRRPt (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:15:49 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f158.google.com ([209.85.220.158]:41363 "EHLO mail-fx0-f158.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753131AbZCRRPs (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:15:48 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-disposition:message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=UIVG1Ku6fDq6lv/aWnWI+INS1F6Jxf/F9FaFMgpzCp+2T1LN5j1wH0BsdrNqcg43YI 5U7RYxp7vf8oOa27QOAV7OV6cagp7ag17tzI6nIV1vZsm8AmquqR2xdFse3enf2TtQ1V UGc2OCHmqWSEFjY/gfo8oaT0UUNqtJds89CPA= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] block: cleanup patches, take#2 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:17:11 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.29-rc8-next-20090317; KDE/4.2.0; i686; ; ) Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1237170540-19130-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <200903161853.14268.bzolnier@gmail.com> <49BEEA64.6060607@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <49BEEA64.6060607@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903181817.11456.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 17 March 2009, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Bartlomiej. > > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > Patches look fine but 0002-0003 will cause pata/block merge conflicts > > for linux-next once they go into block tree so no ACK from me for this > > approach. > > > > $ patch -p1 --dry-run < 0002.patch > > patching file drivers/ide/ide-disk.c > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 405. > > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/ide/ide-disk.c.rej > > patching file drivers/ide/ide-ioctls.c > > > > $ patch -p1 --dry-run < 0003.patch > > patching file drivers/ide/ide-cd.c > > Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] > > Heh... for some reason, I think Stephen wouldn't have much problem > merging those conflicts. Well, you can just ask Stephen if he is fine with fixing merge conflicts for a week or so. If he agrees fine with me. I just wouldn't like to see the _whole_ tree dropped from linux-next because of the last moment block _cleanup_ patches. > I was hoping to push this patchset into 2.6.30. The thing is that if > you only want to take changes from -linus and don't want to provide > git trees, your tree is kind of blocked from both sides except around > -rc1 window, so if there are multiple related changesets, they either > have to go in one after another during a -rc1 window or they need to > be split over multiple -rc1 windows, either of which isn't gonna work > very well. > > Please note that this isn't exactly some overhead which is unduly > weighed on you. Mid-layer or inter-related API changes often incur > merge conflicts and things get very difficult unless there's some > level of cooperation among related trees. > > I understand that you're constrained time and resource-wise and will > be happy to make things easier on your side but options are severely > limited if you don't want to take any changes other than from > upstream. It would be best if you can maintain IDE changes in a git > tree. All that you lose are petty controls over change history. The > tree might look less tidy but it makes things much easier when > multiple trees are involved. I'll be happy to provide merge commits I have been planning on quilt -> git conversion of pata-2.6 tree for some time now but these merge conflicts happen very seldom (once in 6-12 months) while the transition period would require quite a lot of time and work... Anyway point taken. > between blk and ide at sync points, so that you can pull from them and > don't have to worry about conflicts. I don't really think it will add > a lot to your workload. > > That said, let's postpone this patchset post -rc1 window and see how > things can be worked out then. Hmmm... I'll move the IDE patches on > top of linux-next/pata-2.6 with other IDE patches. Please do and thanks for understanding. I think that we can deal with the rest of patches without a problem in the second week of the merge window so everything will be nicely sorted out by the time of -rc1. Thanks. Bart