Prev: Get back to me if you are interested
Next: Add a helper function in PCI IOV to get VF device
From: Jens Axboe on 1 Jun 2010 06:50
On Tue, Jun 01 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> [Replacing Jens' Oracle address ...]
>
> Hi Christoph,
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 04:18:23 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch(a)infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:13:24PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the drbd tree got a conflict in fs/pipe.c
> > > between commit cc967be54710d97c05229b2e5ba2d00df84ddd64 ("fs: Add missing
> > > mutex_unlock") from Linus' tree and commits
> > > 0191f8697bbdfefcd36e7b8dc3eeddfe82893e4b ("pipe: F_SETPIPE_SZ should
> > > return -EPERM for non-root") and b9598db3401282bb27b4aef77e3eee12015f7f29
> > > ("pipe: make F_{GET,SET}PIPE_SZ deal with byte sizes") from the drbd tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix for a while.
> >
> > Why is the drbd tree touching fs/pipe.c anyway?
>
> It is based on the block tree. I assume that it is currently based on a
> version of the block tree that Jens has not yet pushed into
> linux-next. :-(

So the pipe patches were the same, the problem was that a fix for a
missing pipe_unlock() had gone into mainline and for-linus/for-next
weren't synced up to that. I'm guessing you pull drbd before for-next
and that is why it showed up there.

BTW, I would recommend moving for-next from the block tree up before any
potential other trees being based off it if that is the case.

--
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Stephen Rothwell on 1 Jun 2010 06:50
HI Jens,

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:45:15 +0200 Jens Axboe <jaxboe(a)fusionio.com> wrote:
>
> So the pipe patches were the same, the problem was that a fix for a
> missing pipe_unlock() had gone into mainline and for-linus/for-next
> weren't synced up to that. I'm guessing you pull drbd before for-next
> and that is why it showed up there.

Actually, I merge the drbd tree after the block tree and this fell to the
drbd tree only because your for-next branch had not been updated (and I
don't merge your for-linus branch).

> BTW, I would recommend moving for-next from the block tree up before any
> potential other trees being based off it if that is the case.

That is already true.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
From: Jens Axboe on 1 Jun 2010 07:00
On Tue, Jun 01 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> HI Jens,
>
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:45:15 +0200 Jens Axboe <jaxboe(a)fusionio.com> wrote:
> >
> > So the pipe patches were the same, the problem was that a fix for a
> > missing pipe_unlock() had gone into mainline and for-linus/for-next
> > weren't synced up to that. I'm guessing you pull drbd before for-next
> > and that is why it showed up there.
>
> Actually, I merge the drbd tree after the block tree and this fell to the
> drbd tree only because your for-next branch had not been updated (and I
> don't merge your for-linus branch).

Ah I see, then it all adds up.

> > BTW, I would recommend moving for-next from the block tree up before any
> > potential other trees being based off it if that is the case.
>
> That is already true.

Good!

--
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Get back to me if you are interested
Next: Add a helper function in PCI IOV to get VF device