On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 19:38 -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 17:27 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 18:36 -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 16:14 -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > > Hi James and Co, > > > > > > > > Here are the latest v4.0.0-rc7 updates for mainline drivers/target/ code > > > > rebased against linux-2.6.git -> .38-rc2. These individual patches have > > > > been reviewed on linux-scsi and commited into the upstream LIO kernel > > > > tree, so please consider pulling for .38-rc3: > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nab/scsi-post-merge-2.6.git for-38-rc3 > > > > > > > > Also at this point, having Linus pull directly from > > > > scsi-post-merge-2.6.git/for-38-rcX for mainline target bugfixes + > > > > improvements may make more sense. > > > > > > > > Linus/Andrew/James, please let me know which you prefer here. > > > > > > Right at the moment, I'm trying to encourage a few people with > > > established areas to experiment with their own git trees in SCSI, but > > > the target subsystem, being a newcomer, wouldn't be one of these, so, > > > for the time being, patch series over linux-scsi please for review and > > > feedback. > > > > > > > Sure, thanks for the clarification. The same set of patches are > > available against your .37-FINAL based scsi-post-merge-2.6.git/master > > HEAD here: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/nab/scsi-post-merge-2.6.git for-jejb > > > > Please let me know if you have any further questions, > > Over the list, please, not in a git tree. What I need is for others to > review them ... and appearing on the list best encourages that. > Yes, but to clarify one item. All of these patches in for-38-rc3 and for-jejb branches have already been sent out to linux-scsi incrementally when they where committed into LIO upstream code. Are you asking that the entire patch series be re-sent to linux-scsi against .38-rc2..? > It's also better to use something more stable as the base, like linus > head or scsi-misc as the base. The postmerge tree is my most volatile > tree (fairly constantly rebasing as I try to get the merge fixes > right) ... and it's currently defunct until another merge clash appears. > > By way of demonstration, try pulling your current postmerge tree into > linus head and see what happens (the resulting conflicts are because of > the rebases). Yes sorry, I should have been more specific here wrt to my scsi-post-merge-2.6.git branches: *) for-38-rc3: rebased to linus .38-rc2 tag *) for-jejb: based on jejb scsi-post-merge-2.6.git/master @ .37-FINAL from commit 7d2087a1820b (initial LIO target core v4.0.0-rc6 commit) Both are now in sync with the upstream LIO tree v4.0.0-rc7 bugfixes, and I have been keeping 'for-jejb' as convience for you against your initial target merge. --nab -- 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
