linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 293 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
(but the same patch):

  2da6b3c1317e ("Revert "dm: use queue_limits_set"")

This is commit

  bff4b74625fe ("Revert "dm: use queue_limits_set"")

in Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

[Mike Snitzer]

On Wed, Mar 13 2024 at  5:40P -0400,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
> (but the same patch):
> 
>   2da6b3c1317e ("Revert "dm: use queue_limits_set"")
> 
> This is commit
> 
>   bff4b74625fe ("Revert "dm: use queue_limits_set"")
> 
> in Linus' tree.

Sorry about that, fixed it up.

linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 282 bytes --]

Hi all,

The following commit is also in the block tree as a different commit
(but the same patch):

  e87621ac68fe ("dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()")

This is commit

  ae7e965b36e3 ("dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()")

in the block tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

[Jens Axboe]

On 7/10/24 8:17 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The following commit is also in the block tree as a different commit
> (but the same patch):
> 
>   e87621ac68fe ("dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()")
> 
> This is commit
> 
>   ae7e965b36e3 ("dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()")
> 
> in the block tree.

Looks like the dm tree is re-applying patches yesterday rather
than pulling in the dependency?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-6.11&id=e87621ac68fec9086d9f0af4fe96594dd8e07fbb

why?

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

[Mike Snitzer]

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:16:20AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 7/10/24 8:17 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > The following commit is also in the block tree as a different commit
> > (but the same patch):
> > 
> >   e87621ac68fe ("dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()")
> > 
> > This is commit
> > 
> >   ae7e965b36e3 ("dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()")
> > 
> > in the block tree.

Hi Stephen,

I've fixed this.  But FYI, you didn't send mail to Mikulas who was the
committer in this instance.
 
> Looks like the dm tree is re-applying patches yesterday rather
> than pulling in the dependency?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-6.11&id=e87621ac68fec9086d9f0af4fe96594dd8e07fbb
> 
> why?

Really good question.

Mikulas has been handling DM for the 6.11 development cycle.  But I've
helped answer question and such along the way.  We actually had a
meeting on Tuesday to discuss outstanding patches (in patchwork) and
specifically discussed this very patch.  At the time I said I would
get with you to make sure you were the one to pick up Damien's 5
patches (which included what is now commit e87621ac68fe in block).  I
specifically said that the entire series should go through block
because even if DM picked up the one "dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()"
it'd cause problems because block would then depend on DM for a simple
prep commit needed for later a patch in series.

Anyway, I later saw you had already picked up Damien's series and had
no need to reach out to you, I noted as much to a group chat at Red
Hat (Mikulas included).  So not really sure what happened.

Sorry for the noise/trouble.

Mike

Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the device-mapper tree

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2024, Mike Snitzer wrote:

> > Looks like the dm tree is re-applying patches yesterday rather
> > than pulling in the dependency?
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-6.11&id=e87621ac68fec9086d9f0af4fe96594dd8e07fbb
> > 
> > why?
> 
> Really good question.
> 
> Mikulas has been handling DM for the 6.11 development cycle.  But I've
> helped answer question and such along the way.  We actually had a
> meeting on Tuesday to discuss outstanding patches (in patchwork) and
> specifically discussed this very patch.  At the time I said I would
> get with you to make sure you were the one to pick up Damien's 5
> patches (which included what is now commit e87621ac68fe in block).  I
> specifically said that the entire series should go through block
> because even if DM picked up the one "dm: Refactor is_abnormal_io()"
> it'd cause problems because block would then depend on DM for a simple
> prep commit needed for later a patch in series.

I probably badly understood it, I added the patch to my notes and then I 
thought that I should apply it. Sorry for that.

Mikulas

> Anyway, I later saw you had already picked up Damien's series and had
> no need to reach out to you, I noted as much to a group chat at Red
> Hat (Mikulas included).  So not really sure what happened.
> 
> Sorry for the noise/trouble.
> 
> Mike
>