On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:16 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 15:54:59 +0300 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This patch should be squashed into
> > [SCSI] FC Pass Thru support
> >
> > If it needs to compile after Tejun's block-layer revamps
> > (all of them)
>
> Is there some reason that the FC passthrough support (and any followup
> patches) can't be pushed through the block tree. It clearly currently
> doesn't depend on anything new in the scsi tree ...
That would preserve the logical sequence of patches, yes. However, Jens
is a bit pressed for time, so I agreed to do this in SCSI.
Unfortuantely, I still need the block tree for-next to be rebased up to
the current linus head because of a couple of conflicts:
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/block/hd.c
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in drivers/block/mg_disk.c
The are both just rebase/rebase conflicts: it looks like there are two
commit ids for
commit 0191944282e84931f92915b5f06b348a92dac7e1
Author: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Apr 28 12:38:33 2009 +0900
hd: fix locking
commit 7090a0a97f55cbf47547a140fcc5a349f32c598c
Author: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Apr 28 12:38:33 2009 +0900
mg_disk: fix CONFIG_LBD=y warning
commit ac2ff946a53e7bd0ae98f4e5d1d6c1b1dced82e5
Author: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Apr 28 12:38:32 2009 +0900
mg_disk: fix locking
So they obviously moved into linus head but wasn't taken out of block
for-next.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
