On 29-05-22, 11:49, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:50 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Please pull to receive the dmaengine updates for this cycle. Nothing > > special, this includes a couple of new device support and new driver > > support and bunch of driver updates. > > Vinod, _please_ report it when it turns out that there are semantic > merge issues in linux-next. > > The whole point of linux-next is to report and find problems, but that > also means that if the issues found in linux-next are then completely > ignored, the _point_ of being in linux-next goes away. > > In particular, there was a semantic drivers/dma/idxd/device.c that git > was perfectly happy to merge one way, but that needed manual > intervention to get the locking right. See > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/a6df0b8a-dc42-51e4-4b7b-62d1d11c7800@xxxxxxxxx/ > > and this is exactly the kind of thing that should be mentioned in the > pull request, because no, I do not track every single merge issue in > linux-next. > > I only catch them when something makes me go "Hmm", and in this case > it was a different conflict near-by that just happened to make me look > closer (the same one that Stephen had noted). > > Stephen makes this clear in his notifications: > > "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" > > and yes, the original merge was indeed trivial and wouldn't have > needed any further mention had it _stayed_ that way. > > But it didn't actually stay that way, as pointed out by Dave Jiang in > that thread. > > The fact that I caught it this time doesn't mean that I will catch > things like this in general. I'm pretty good at merging, but there > really is a reason linux-next exists. Hi Linus, Sorry about missing it, am not sure why I didn't add it here, usually I do add. Apologies again for missing this and will ensure it won't be missed again. Yes merge had conflicts and linux-next had an updated and correct resolution which should have been mentioned by me as was done in the past. Will take steps to ensure I dont miss them. Thanks -- ~Vinod
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
