Re: [PULL REQUEST] Please pull rdma.git

[Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

On 9/9/2015 11:09 AM, Matan Barak wrote:
>
> On 9/9/2015 9:41 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 05:33:28AM CEST, 
>> torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3X+HMGWnyQKZs0AfqQuZ5sE@public.gmane.org:
>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Doug Ledford 
>>> <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> With a comment that said "I can carry this merge forward, no further
>>>> action is necessary on your part".  That combined with my lack of deep
>>>> internal knowledge of what it is that Stephen is doing made me go "Ok,
>>>> he says don't do anything, so I won't change it."
>>>
>>> So quite frankly, Stephen does a really good job at merging and most
>>> of his merges are very on point. He's been doing a lot of them as part
>>> of linux-next, and has seen more conflicts than just about anybody
>>> else.
>>>
>>> But I think to him it's mostly just an issue of "get the right end
>>> result". I don't think he goes: "this merge conflict is a result of a
>>> breakdown of the development process".
>>>
>>> Conversely, to me, one of the main reasons I want to do those merges
>>> is exactly because I think conflicts are more about the development
>>> process issues than about "just getting the right end result". Yes,
>>> obviously I want to get the rigth end result too, but I very much
>>> react to how/why the conflict happened in the first place. The end
>>> result is _almost_secondary, although 99% of the time the primary
>>> issue doesn't really even raise its head.
>>>
>>> So I'm upset not because the conflict is hard to resolve (it isn't),
>>> but because I feel this was really badly handled.
>>>
>>> Yes, the fact that Mellanox people sent two different patches to two
>>> different maintainers that did the same thing in two different ways is
>>> odd. Matan and Jiri are cc'd, and I think that whole thing just smells
>>> really bad.
>>
>> It's not that odd. I'm not checking rdma tree. I work with net-next/net
>> tree only when I do net patches. I wasn't aware of Matan's patches,
>> different group.
>>
>
> Indeed, two different groups working on two different product lines.
> That's why I wasn't aware of Jiri's work. This patch (ccing netdev) 
> was posted around June. Anyway, Stephen did a really good job merging 
> the two versions. 

Yep, Stephen reported on the conflict and Jiri acked the way he fixed 
that, we were aware of things and didn't think any further action is 
needed from our side. Both the mlx4 and mlx5 are stacked driver suites 
that have a core and Ethernet drivers developed trough netdev and RDMA 
driver that goes through the rdma tree, it's been working like this for 
almost ten years, with net-next : rdma-next conflicts happening from 
time to time and being solved successfully with Stephen & CO and the 
subsystem maintainers. We're happily having now also our switch drivers 
joining the party, and things should be OK, as long as the maintainer 
-next tree is fully subscribed to linux-next merge tests.

Or.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html