On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:11:24PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Since the conflict with v4.15 involves some code motion and is not so > > trivial, so I have included a merge to tag v4.15 as the top commit in > > this PR that has the resolution reviewed by the patch authors and > > tested in linux-next. The tag 'for-linus-unmerged' is available > > without this merge if you desire. > > Thanks, this was well done. A thoughtful merge with explanation for > why the conflict happened and why back-merge was done, and taking a > sane merge point (v4.15 rather than some random daily point). Thanks Linus, it is good to know I've understood your past remarks properly! On the topic of back merges, can you give some guidance? With some success, we've encouraged all the driver vendors to test -rc kernels and test our RDMA for-next internally during the entire -rc cycle. Most of the testers are taking RDMA for-next and merging it with latest -rcX then testing the result. Due to the conflict above our tree was left with complicated merge conflicts for about 3-4 weeks, and some of the testers have had pain due to this. Would back merging -rcX ealier, with a similar but better merge commit, be an acceptable practice? I'm unsure since we'd be doing this to support testers/users and not as a development requirement. In this case we'd send you a PR with the back merge for conflict resolution well down the commit list. Thanks, Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
