On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 13:09 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 12:57 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 21:45 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:39:17AM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 16:02 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:52:17PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:42:54 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I see two options: > > > > > > > - I go ahead with my changes and you with yours and let Linus resolve > > > > > > > the conflict. This means bisect build will be broken since the > > > > > > > breakage will likely not be noticed until after the merge. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, since the resolution is known, the one who submits their tree > > > > > > later should tell Linus (as suggested by Nicholas). That is part of > > > > > > the point of the linux-next tree ... and therefore there would be no > > > > > > bisect problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stephen (CC'ed) has included a fix in today's linux-next for the merge > > > > > > > > conflict here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please confirm, as it will be a pointer to Linus within the > > > > > > > > target-pending/for-next PULL request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but this does mean people trying to bisect will > > > > > > > hit build breakages, not nice. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see how that's possible. > > > > > Here's a point you might have missed. > > > > > Nicholas's patch isn't just introducing a merge conflict. > > > > > It is also buggy. > > > > > Replacing bit access with has_feature silently fixes the bug. > > > > > > > > > > So if we want to avoid bisect breakage target tree will > > > > > have to be rebased. > > > > > > > > > > And if doing that anyway, I don't see any reason not > > > > > to merge everything through the vhost tree, esp > > > > > since I already put the patches there. Less work for > > > > > everyone involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is with Sagi's recent changes wrt to including T10 PI bytes > > > > into expected data transfer length in target-core, you'll end up > > > > introducing a different bug into your tree.. ;) > > > > > > > > Why don't I simply add Stephen's patch to use vhost_has_feature() in > > > > target-pending/for-next, and we just make sure that the vhost PULL > > > > request goes out after target-pending..? > > > > > > > > --nab > > > > > > Because that depends on vhost API changes :) > > > > > > > Ugh, right. > > > > In that case, let's see what Linus (CC'ed) prefers to do.. > > Build a branch with all the patches dependent on the new API based on > top of the vhost tree. Then you send it to Linus after the vhost tree > is merged (otherwise you end up being the person sending the vhost > tree). > > That way there's no API breakage and we get a consistent always > buildable tree. > That would work, or I can simply include a pointer to Stephen's patch in the target-pending PULL request after the vhost API changes are merged and Linus can apply himself.. Linus, which do you prefer..? --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
