On 1/15/22 08:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Damien, > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2022 08:27:12 +0900 Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 1/14/22 22:54, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:59 AM Damien Le Moal >>> <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> ATA changes for 5.17-rc1 >>> >>> A number of these commits are not in linux-next. Why? >> >> That is strange. I have kept my for-next branch in sync with for-5.17 >> all the time and got several built-bot warnings that I addressed. >> >>> It looks like you have rebased things very recently (and looks like >>> you did it a week ago too). Or maybe some patch-queue system, or >>> whatever. Why? If it hasn't been in linux-next, you should explain >>> what's up. >> >> The last intentional rebase on 5.16-rc8 of the for-5.17 branch was to >> check that there were no conflicts nor any problems with the fixes in >> 5.16. I did that because Hannes series touched a lot of drivers (if not >> most of them). > > That check van be done by doing a test merge and if there is nothing > major, then don't bother doing the rebase. Understood. I will do that in the future, and not push the rebase. > >> I am not sure why the patches do not show up in linux-next. As mentioned >> above, since I got several build-bot warnings, I am confident that this >> went through build tests and passes. Or am I missing something in the >> workflow ? >> >> Stephen, >> >> I am almost certain that you are pulling patches from libata for-next >> branch since I got build bot reports and you also pinged me directly >> about these. Is there something I am missing about linux-next ? Is there >> some other request I need to send to someone to get patches pulled there >> too ? I was under the assumption that your pulls end up creating >> linux-next... > > I do fetch your for-next branch every day, but here is the "git > range-diff" between your branch in yesterday's linux-next and the > branch I fetched today: > > $ git range-diff e928da321f0bd51f9cf211eab0a7b2fc089685a7...libata/for-next > 1: bd7300988b26 < -: ------------ ata: ahci_st: add compile test support > 2: e3e44274998d = 1: 28a53d3160ac ata: ahci_mtk: add compile test support > 3: eec6634ee717 = 2: 368c7edc15e5 ata: ahci_mvebu: add compile test support > 4: 003785331487 = 3: c05b911afffa ata: ahci_sunxi: add compile test support > 5: a4dd1e0f6542 = 4: 3d98cbf7096e ata: ahci_tegra: add compile test support > 6: 9ec8eadac3a4 = 5: b7c9b00fb050 ata: ahci_xgene: add compile test support > 7: 9fc38794e9b2 = 6: a33a348d0aca ata: ahci_seattle: add compile test support > 8: e9123b1cef47 = 7: a3d11c275b64 ata: pata_bk3710: add compile test support > 9: 4c8bbbba007c = 8: e5b48ee30aec ata: sata_fsl: fix scsi host initialization > 10: 04ed3c17408e = 9: f8bc938ee6c6 ata: sata_fsl: fix cmdhdr_tbl_entry and prde struct definitions > 11: d64f9dbf0ae5 = 10: 2bce69072a0d ata: ahci_xgene: use correct type for port mmio address > 12: 75d7ef1d0409 = 11: 0561e514c944 ata: fix read_id() ata port operation interface > 13: 953e5fc04f30 = 12: 9c2fd3fb43bd ata: pata_octeon_cf: remove redundant val variable > 14: b76fc153e3d4 = 13: dc5d7b3cfd78 ata: pata_cs5535: add compile test support > 15: 148f7ed51e8f = 14: 2aa566716f43 ata: pata_ftide010: add compile test support > 16: 6aef8c23f268 = 15: 7dc3c053bddf ata: pata_imx: add compile test support > 17: 017253b5a7fa = 16: 7767c73a3565 ata: pata_pxa: add compile test support > 18: f4c8787686a4 = 17: b6a64a860e13 ata: pata_samsung_cf: add compile test support > 19: e790a4f79933 = 18: db6a3f47cecc ata: pata_of_platform: Use platform_get_irq_optional() to get the interrupt > 20: cadac042d432 = 19: 84eac327af54 ata: libata-scsi: simplify __ata_scsi_queuecmd() > 21: a49c0c3fc253 = 20: b9ba367c513d ata: libata: Rename link flag ATA_LFLAG_NO_DB_DELAY > 22: 6977409c421b = 21: a17ab7aba5df ata: ahci: Add support for AMD A85 FCH (Hudson D4) > 23: e928da321f0b = 22: 237fe8885a3f ata: pata_ali: remove redundant return statement > > So, you removed a commit and the rest is the same. Yes, I did remove the patch that added compile test for the ahci_st driver as it was generating a warning with an hexagon randconfig (see https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202201122335.B7ADTynl-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/). I removed the patch as I did not see a clean way to avoid the warning. Linus, With the difference noted by Stephen above, I can see all patches of the PR I sent in linux-next. Does that address your concerns ? Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to fix the PR. Thanks ! -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
