From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761940AbZCQAKe (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:10:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753843AbZCQAKX (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:10:23 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:45648 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753191AbZCQAKW (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:10:22 -0400 Message-ID: <49BEEA64.6060607@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:10:12 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz CC: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] block: cleanup patches, take#2 References: <1237170540-19130-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <200903161853.14268.bzolnier@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200903161853.14268.bzolnier@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. 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 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. Jens, please keep reviewing. I'll keep track of ack status. Thanks. -- tejun