On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Jens, please pull from... >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djbw/nvdimm tags/libnd-for-jens >> >> ...to receive the libnd sub-system for the next merge window. This has >> been through 3 rounds of review. Incremental diffstats and links to >> previous postings: >> >> v1: 39 files changed, 13102 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) >> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2015-April/000484.html >> >> v2: 30 files changed, 3166 insertions(+), 3935 deletions(-) >> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2015-April/000574.html >> >> v3: 33 files changed, 2202 insertions(+), 1233 deletions(-) >> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2015-May/000804.html >> >> v4: Full diffstat since v3 >> >> Documentation/blockdev/libnd.txt | 2 +- >> arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ++ >> arch/x86/kernel/pmem.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >> drivers/acpi/nfit.c | 20 ++++---- >> drivers/acpi/nfit.h | 4 +- >> drivers/block/Kconfig | 8 --- >> drivers/block/Makefile | 1 - >> drivers/block/e820_pmem.c | 100 -------------------------------------- >> drivers/block/nd/Kconfig | 10 ++++ >> drivers/block/nd/btt.h | 2 +- >> drivers/block/nd/namespace_devs.c | 5 +- >> drivers/block/nd/pmem.c | 2 +- >> drivers/block/nd/test/nfit.c | 10 ++-- >> include/acpi/acuuid.h | 16 +++--- >> 14 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 171 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 drivers/block/e820_pmem.c >> >> 1/ Kill drivers/block/e820_pmem.c, we can just register pmem >> regions directly from arch/x86/kernel/pmem.c without need for an >> intermediary driver (Christoph). >> >> 2/ Update to latest NFIT UUID definitions (Toshi). This >> merges cleanly with, and is identical to the include/acpi/ >> NFIT enabling in Rafael's linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge branch. > > Well, I didn't expect you to send a pull request for this right away > to be honest. No worries, we can address these concerns now... > Can you please pull from my acpica branch and rebase your patches on > top of that by any chance? I noticed that bleeding-edge rebased from the last time I checked is that branch stable enough to use as a baseline? > And no, the "merges cleanly" part isn't sufficient as it'll create a > mess of a history if merged together like that. Can we do that > properly instead? If I merge 'bleeding-edge' on top of v4.1-rc5 followed by this branch and do a "git log include/acpi/acuuid.h" then the full history from the 'bleeding-edge' branch shows up. I'm fine with doing the rebase, but I don't quite see the mess to which you are referring. Especially compared to the thrash of moving our test baseline. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
