From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:58:27 -0500 Message-ID: <1220623107.3331.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20080905161212.e3612601.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20080905062237.GM20055@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from accolon.hansenpartnership.com ([76.243.235.52]:47328 "EHLO accolon.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752781AbYIEN6d (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2008 09:58:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080905062237.GM20055@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jens Axboe Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , Mike Christie On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 08:22 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Jens, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in > > include/linux/bio.h and include/linux/blkdev.h between commit > > 81449f3f2013d92ec3bcb9d2c1877ce3140d2271 ("[SCSI] block: separate > > failfast into multiple bits") from the scsi tree and commit > > 5d112a624058caabe5b570d2c9827bce82c18be1 ("Add 'discard' request > > handling") from the block tree. > > > > Overlapping changes/additions to some bit definitions. I have fixed it > > up as best I can (see below) and can carry the fix. > > James, would it not have been a lot better to carry the block bits in > the block tree instead?? They're only a tiny piece of all of this ... and without them, my SCSI tree won't compile. I'll separate them into a post merge tree again to resolve the conflicts. However, this time, I really need linux-next to work out how it handles post merge trees ... this will be the third time I've asked. James