On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:13:49PM -0800, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:48:03PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:10:08PM -0500, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Various improvements to the SDMA engine code. > > > > Greg, > > > > Thanks for reviewing and accepting our patches to staging-testing. I apologize > > for the conflicts we had between the 3 of us submitting. However, in > > attempting to rework an internal branch to ensure this does not happen again I > > believe there were more conflicts than their should have been due to patches > > being accepted out of order. > > > > For example, I found the following error in your staging tree below. > > > > This series you applied in the following order which causes a build failure on > > the middle commit -- a0d4069. > > > > 483119a staging/rdma/hfi1: Unconditionally clean-up SDMA queues > > def8228 staging/rdma/hfi1: Convert to use get_user_pages_fast > > a0d4069 staging/rdma/hfi1: Add page lock limit check for SDMA requests > > faa98b8 staging/rdma/hfi1: Clean-up unnecessary goto statements > > 6a5464f staging/rdma/hfi1: Detect SDMA transmission error early > > > > The order as submitted was: > > > > staging/rdma/hfi1: Convert to use get_user_pages_fast > > staging/rdma/hfi1: Unconditionally clean-up SDMA queues > > staging/rdma/hfi1: Clean-up unnecessary goto statements > > staging/rdma/hfi1: Detect SDMA transmission error early > > staging/rdma/hfi1: Add page lock limit check for SDMA requests > > > > > > > > Do I need to resolve this somehow? Or is this something you resolve while the > > patches are in staging-testing? > > > > Is there something we need to do in the cover letter of a patch series to > > ensure order? Perhaps my cover letter implied these were not ordered? If so, > > I again apologize. > > Did you number your patches? Yes, sent with git-send-email. http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2015-December/thread.html#82509 > That's the only way to ensure that they > are applied in the correct order, that's what I sort on to apply them. > If you don't order them, I randomly guess, or just reject them... > > All seems to build now, right? Yes all builds now. I just did not know if as part of testing an incremental build check would then reject the patch. Ira _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
