On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 06:34 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:17:13PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 11:14 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Doug,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the rdma tree got conflicts in:
> > >
> > > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c
> > > drivers/infiniband/core/verbs.c
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > > d291f1a65232 ("IB/core: Enforce PKey security on QPs")
> > >
> > > from Linus' tree and commits:
> > >
> > > c7c0fb974caa ("IB/core: Introduce modify QP operation with
> > > udata")
> > > 5f4bc420f35f ("IB/uverbs: Make use of ib_modify_qp variant to
> > > avoid
> > > resolving DMAC")
> > >
> > > from the rdma tree.
> > >
> > > I fixed it up (I used the latter version of uverbs_cmd.c and see
> > > below)
> > > and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as
> > > linux-next
> > > is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned
> > > to
> > > your
> > > upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You
> > > may
> > > also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the
> > > conflicting
> > > tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.
> >
> > This was expected. The SELinux changes went through the SELinux
> > tree
> > and the referenced patches touch the same code. Your fix is
> > correct.
>
> Sorry Doug, but it is not expected at all for the code which will go
> to 4.14.
Who said anything about 4.14? The merge window is not closed, and a
current for-next tag need not represent code intended for 4.14. That
switchover doesn't happen until the merge window closes (and for many
trees, a couple rc cycles past the merge window closing).
> Both patches in question were targeted for 4.13 and you was expected
> to
> see the merge conflicts during last month or so, prior to merge
> window of 4.13.
>
> In 4.14, you should base your tree on Linus's tree and don't have ANY
> conflicts in your subsystem, between ANY subsystems and especially
> Linus, so we will be able to develop and test.
I'm sure for 4.14 that will be the issue. I didn't put this tag on my
4.14 intended work. I considered this patch series suitable as
possible -rc fixes, so it is under a for-next tag for now to get the
for-next testing (which is not much different than a local merge test
right now, what it does in addition to a local merge test is catch the
situation where some other pending patches and this conflict).
> For me, this merge conflict puts a large sign, that your tree is not
> ready for 4.14.
>
> Please base your tree on Linus's tree.
Two things here. First, no one, and I mean *NO ONE*, bases their for-
next branch on a middle of the merge window version of Linus' tree.
Second, I would be happy to base my work on a suitable base kernel
version from Linus' tree from now on (such as -rc2). Please do *NOT*
send me another patch set that requires I sync up from net-next in
order to make things work, because, as you say, I should sync up to
Linus' tree.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
--
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
