linux-next: manual merge of the osd tree with the scsi tree

linux-next: manual merge of the osd tree with the scsi tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 778 bytes --]

Hi Boaz,

Today's linux-next merge of the osd tree got a conflict in
drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c between commit
f89b9ee4a722721ed205b8c29555ac75fbe8c2cc ("[SCSI] osduld: Use
device->release instead of internal kref") from the scsi tree and commit
9b579fe8588b861dcf0c9b620757729643db4557 ("osduld: Use device->release
instead of internal kref") from the osd tree.

These are slightly different versions of the same patch ...

And commit 01e4c32c668251e74eb179ee1207c075466c4ef8 ("osduld: No need to
use dev_set_drvdata on embedded devices") from the osd also contributes
to the conflict.

I fixed it up (the obvious way) and can carry the fix for a while.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the osd tree with the scsi tree

[Boaz Harrosh]

On 11/27/2009 05:32 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Boaz,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the osd tree got a conflict in
> drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c between commit
> f89b9ee4a722721ed205b8c29555ac75fbe8c2cc ("[SCSI] osduld: Use
> device->release instead of internal kref") from the scsi tree and commit
> 9b579fe8588b861dcf0c9b620757729643db4557 ("osduld: Use device->release
> instead of internal kref") from the osd tree.
> 
> These are slightly different versions of the same patch ...
> 
> And commit 01e4c32c668251e74eb179ee1207c075466c4ef8 ("osduld: No need to
> use dev_set_drvdata on embedded devices") from the osd also contributes
> to the conflict.
> 

James has squashed these two patches together. Which do belong together
I should say. In my tree they are separate. I will change my tree to
match James's.

Thanks James, I prefer it much better this way.

> I fixed it up (the obvious way) and can carry the fix for a while.

Thanks
Boaz

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the osd tree with the scsi tree

[Boaz Harrosh]

On 11/29/2009 11:10 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 11/27/2009 05:32 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Boaz,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the osd tree got a conflict in
>> drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c between commit
>> f89b9ee4a722721ed205b8c29555ac75fbe8c2cc ("[SCSI] osduld: Use
>> device->release instead of internal kref") from the scsi tree and commit
>> 9b579fe8588b861dcf0c9b620757729643db4557 ("osduld: Use device->release
>> instead of internal kref") from the osd tree.
>>
>> These are slightly different versions of the same patch ...
>>
>> And commit 01e4c32c668251e74eb179ee1207c075466c4ef8 ("osduld: No need to
>> use dev_set_drvdata on embedded devices") from the osd also contributes
>> to the conflict.
>>
> 
> James has squashed these two patches together. Which do belong together
> I should say. In my tree they are separate. I will change my tree to
> match James's.
> 
> Thanks James, I prefer it much better this way.
> 

James hi.

In your merge of the patch:
    [SCSI] osduld: Use device->release instead of internal kref
at:
    [jejb: fold in use of container_of]

You have made a mistake, which renders the driver unusable.
At osd_remove() you changed the use of dev_get_drvdata to an, container_of()
but it is the *wrong* dev at this point this dev here is the grand-parent of
the embedded dev in question.

Also at the next patch:
    [SCSI] libosd: osd_dev_info: Unique Identification of an OSD device

a new use of dev_get_drvdata() is not converted to a container_of(), which by
now will return NULL.

Should I repost the correct two patches (my preference)? should I send in a fix to
current scsi-misc tree? or should I send two SQUASH-ME patches to the two bad commits
in your tree?

How do you want to proceed?

>> I fixed it up (the obvious way) and can carry the fix for a while.
> 

Stephan, I have not yet fixed up the conflict in -next, please carry that
fix you have for a little while, until we resolve it.

> Thanks
> Boaz

Boaz

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the osd tree with the scsi tree

[James Bottomley]

On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 15:07 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 11/29/2009 11:10 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > On 11/27/2009 05:32 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Boaz,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the osd tree got a conflict in
> >> drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c between commit
> >> f89b9ee4a722721ed205b8c29555ac75fbe8c2cc ("[SCSI] osduld: Use
> >> device->release instead of internal kref") from the scsi tree and commit
> >> 9b579fe8588b861dcf0c9b620757729643db4557 ("osduld: Use device->release
> >> instead of internal kref") from the osd tree.
> >>
> >> These are slightly different versions of the same patch ...
> >>
> >> And commit 01e4c32c668251e74eb179ee1207c075466c4ef8 ("osduld: No need to
> >> use dev_set_drvdata on embedded devices") from the osd also contributes
> >> to the conflict.
> >>
> > 
> > James has squashed these two patches together. Which do belong together
> > I should say. In my tree they are separate. I will change my tree to
> > match James's.
> > 
> > Thanks James, I prefer it much better this way.
> > 
> 
> James hi.
> 
> In your merge of the patch:
>     [SCSI] osduld: Use device->release instead of internal kref
> at:
>     [jejb: fold in use of container_of]
> 
> You have made a mistake, which renders the driver unusable.
> At osd_remove() you changed the use of dev_get_drvdata to an, container_of()
> but it is the *wrong* dev at this point this dev here is the grand-parent of
> the embedded dev in question.
> 
> Also at the next patch:
>     [SCSI] libosd: osd_dev_info: Unique Identification of an OSD device
> 
> a new use of dev_get_drvdata() is not converted to a container_of(), which by
> now will return NULL.
> 
> Should I repost the correct two patches (my preference)? should I send in a fix to
> current scsi-misc tree? or should I send two SQUASH-ME patches to the two bad commits
> in your tree?
>
> How do you want to proceed?

Send me the replacement patch (and tell me which commit id in my tree
it's replacing).

Thanks,

James

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the osd tree with the scsi tree

[Boaz Harrosh]

On 11/29/2009 03:46 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>
>> Should I repost the correct two patches (my preference)? should I send in a fix to
>> current scsi-misc tree? or should I send two SQUASH-ME patches to the two bad commits
>> in your tree?
>>
>> How do you want to proceed?
> 
> Send me the replacement patch (and tell me which commit id in my tree
> it's replacing).
> 

Thank you James.

I'm posting two patches as reply to this mail.

[PATCH 1/2] osduld: Use device->release instead of internal kref
which replaces:
f89b9ee [SCSI] osduld: Use device->release instead of internal kref

and

[PATCH 2/2] libosd: osd_dev_info: Unique Identification of an OSD device
which replaces:
3b616d4 [SCSI] libosd: osd_dev_info: Unique Identification of an OSD device


> Thanks,
> 
> James
> 
> 

Boaz

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the osd tree with the scsi tree

[James Bottomley]

On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 16:23 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 11/29/2009 03:46 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>
> >> Should I repost the correct two patches (my preference)? should I send in a fix to
> >> current scsi-misc tree? or should I send two SQUASH-ME patches to the two bad commits
> >> in your tree?
> >>
> >> How do you want to proceed?
> > 
> > Send me the replacement patch (and tell me which commit id in my tree
> > it's replacing).
> > 
> 
> Thank you James.
> 
> I'm posting two patches as reply to this mail.
> 
> [PATCH 1/2] osduld: Use device->release instead of internal kref
> which replaces:
> f89b9ee [SCSI] osduld: Use device->release instead of internal kref
> 
> and
> 
> [PATCH 2/2] libosd: osd_dev_info: Unique Identification of an OSD device
> which replaces:
> 3b616d4 [SCSI] libosd: osd_dev_info: Unique Identification of an OSD device

OK, replacement should be done in scsi-misc (give an hour or two for
mirror updates).

James

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the osd tree with the scsi tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 691 bytes --]

Hi James, Boaz,

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:23:35 -0500 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > [PATCH 1/2] osduld: Use device->release instead of internal kref
> > which replaces:
> > f89b9ee [SCSI] osduld: Use device->release instead of internal kref
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > [PATCH 2/2] libosd: osd_dev_info: Unique Identification of an OSD device
> > which replaces:
> > 3b616d4 [SCSI] libosd: osd_dev_info: Unique Identification of an OSD device
> 
> OK, replacement should be done in scsi-misc (give an hour or two for
> mirror updates).

Thanks guys.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]