On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:10:12AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:08 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:27:44AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > The functionality is identical to the one currently open coded in > > > > > > device-dax. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > drivers/dax/dax-private.h | 4 ---- > > > > > > drivers/dax/device.c | 43 --------------------------------------- > > > > > > 2 files changed, 47 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > DanW: I think this series has reached enough review, did you want > > > > > to ack/test any further? > > > > > > > > > > This needs to land in hmm.git soon to make the merge window. > > > > > > > > I was awaiting a decision about resolving the collision with Ira's > > > > patch before testing the final result again [1]. You can go ahead and > > > > add my reviewed-by for the series, but my tested-by should be on the > > > > final state of the series. > > > > > > The conflict looks OK to me, I think we can let Andrew and Linus > > > resolve it. > > > > Andrew's tree effectively always rebases since it's a quilt series. > > I'd recommend pulling Ira's patch out of -mm and applying it with the > > rest of hmm reworks. Any other git tree I'd agree with just doing the > > late conflict resolution, but I'm not clear on what's the best > > practice when conflicting with -mm. What happens depends on timing as things arrive to Linus. I promised to send hmm.git early, so I understand that Andrew will quilt rebase his tree to Linus's and fix the conflict in Ira's patch before he sends it. > Regardless the patch is buggy. If you want to do the conflict > resolution it should be because the DEVICE_PUBLIC removal effectively > does the same fix otherwise we're knowingly leaving a broken point in > the history. I'm not sure I understand your concern, is there something wrong with CH's series as it stands? hmm is a non-rebasing git tree, so as long as the series is correct *when I apply it* there is no broken history. I assumed the conflict resolution for Ira's patch was to simply take the deletion of the if block from CH's series - right? If we do need to take Ira's patch into hmm.git it will go after CH's series (and Ira will have to rebase/repost it), so I think there is nothing to do at this moment - unless you are saying there is a problem with the series in CH's git tree? Regards, Jason
