On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
>>>> drivers/block/loop.c between commit 2486740b52fd ("loop: use aio to
>>>> perform io on the underlying file") from the aio-direct tree and commit
>>>> ed2d2f9a8265 ("block: Abstract out bvec iterator") from the block tree.
>>>>
>>>> I fixed it up (I think - see below - I have also attached the final
>>>> resulting file) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is
>>>> required).
>>>>
>>>
>>> What tree is this from? It'd be a lot more convenient to fold that loop
>>> patch into my tree, especially since the block tree in linux-next failed
>>> after this merge.
>>
>> I can only agree with you. It is from the aio-direct tree (probably
>> misnamed by me) (git://github.com/kleikamp/linux-shaggy.git#for-next) run
>> by Dave Kleikamp.
>
> Dave, input requested.
>
> In any case, I would suggest dropping the aio-direct tree instead of the
> entire block tree for coverage purposes, if merge or build failures
> happen because of it.
I've had these patches in linux-next since August, and I'd really like
to push them in the 3.13 merge window.
Are there other problems besides this merge issue? I'll take a closer
look at Stephen's merge patch and see if I find any other issues, but I
really don't want to pull these patches out of linux-next now.
Thanks,
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
