From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the rdma tree Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:26:01 -0600 Message-ID: <20180815192601.GI2341@mellanox.com> References: <20180726135804.0257047e@canb.auug.org.au> <20180815114539.34e066e1@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180815114539.34e066e1@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Doug Ledford , Jens Axboe , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Bart Van Assche , Max Gurtovoy , Christoph Hellwig List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:45:39AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 13:58:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in: > > > > drivers/nvme/target/rdma.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 23f96d1f15a7 ("nvmet-rdma: Simplify ib_post_(send|recv|srq_recv)() calls") > > 202093848cac ("nvmet-rdma: add an error flow for post_recv failures") > > > > from the rdma tree and commits: > > > > 2fc464e2162c ("nvmet-rdma: add unlikely check in the fast path") > > > > from the block tree. > > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > > complex conflicts. > > > > This is now a conflict between Linus' tree and the rdma tree. Yes, I expect this.. good thing we had linux-next as several of these needed non-obvious changes. I keep track of your postings and build a conflict resolution for Linus to refer to. netdev is the last conflicting tree I expect, and it hasn't been sent yet.. Thanks, Jason