On 11/10/2017 10:33 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:27:24AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> That makes for a bit of an awkward merge, why wasn't this fixed up
>> in your tree?
>
> Because you asked me to always base on for-4.15/block last time?
That's not what I meant. It's conflicting because of a patch, that's
fine. But the code in your tree is:
if (a == &dev_attr_uuid.attr) {
if (uuid_is_null(&ids->uuid) ||
!memchr_inv(ids->nguid, 0, sizeof(ids->nguid)))
return 0;
}
and you're saying the right resolution is:
if (a == &dev_attr_uuid.attr) {
if (uuid_is_null(&ids->uuid) ||
!memchr_inv(ids->nguid, 0, sizeof(ids->nguid)))
return 0;
}
My point is that this should have been fixed up in your tree. Yes, it'd
still cause a conflict, that's fine, but at least the merge would not
end up also containing a fix for the above code. That part is not
logical.
--
Jens Axboe
