From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] block: cleanup patches, take#2
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:19:23 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49C18F8B.8090306@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200903181817.11456.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Hello,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>> 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.
Okay, let's postpone them to .31 window.
>> 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.
Ah... that sounds great. Yeah, conversion does take time and effort
to get accustomed to, but I think it will be well worth the while.
>> 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. Much appreciated. I'll send IDE patchset in a few days.
--
tejun
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-19 0:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-16 2:28 [GIT PATCH] block: cleanup patches, take#2 Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 01/17] ide: use blk_run_queue() instead of blk_start_queueing() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 02/17] ide: don't set REQ_SOFTBARRIER Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 03/17] ide: use blk_update_request() instead of blk_end_request_callback() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 04/17] block: merge blk_invoke_request_fn() into __blk_run_queue() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 05/17] block: kill blk_start_queueing() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 06/17] block: don't set REQ_NOMERGE unnecessarily Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 07/17] block: cleanup REQ_SOFTBARRIER usages Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 08/17] block: clean up misc stuff after block layer timeout conversion Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 09/17] block: reorder request completion functions Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 10/17] block: reorganize request fetching functions Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 11/17] block: kill blk_end_request_callback() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 12/17] block: clean up request completion API Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 13/17] block: move rq->start_time initialization to blk_rq_init() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 14/17] block: implement and use [__]blk_end_request_all() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 15/17] block: kill end_request() Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 3:23 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-16 3:27 ` Grant Likely
2009-03-21 2:58 ` Tejun Heo
2009-03-24 11:37 ` Jens Axboe
2009-03-24 13:07 ` Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:28 ` [PATCH 16/17] ubd: simplify block request completion Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 2:29 ` [PATCH 17/17] block: clean up unnecessary stuff from block drivers Tejun Heo
2009-03-16 17:53 ` [GIT PATCH] block: cleanup patches, take#2 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-03-17 0:10 ` Tejun Heo
2009-03-18 17:17 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2009-03-19 0:19 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
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=49C18F8B.8090306@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bzolnier@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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