From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751432AbdATGpA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 01:45:00 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:35228 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751308AbdATGo6 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 01:44:58 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:35:52 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the scsi tree with the tip tree
Message-ID: <20170120063552.GA14142@gmail.com>
References: <20170120142343.3d2e72af@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170120142343.3d2e72af@canb.auug.org.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi James,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   drivers/scsi/mpt3sas/mpt3sas_scsih.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e963b7088dac ("scsi: mpt3sas: Fix hang on ata passthru commands")
> 
> from the tip tree and commit:
> 
>   ffb584565894 ("scsi: mpt3sas: fix hang on ata passthrough commands")
> 
> from the scsi tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (slightly different versions of the same patch - I used
> the latter version) 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.

I only had that patch for testing and it went into the -next branch by accident - 
I have removed it so the conflict should be gone next time -next is integrated.

Thanks,

	Ingo