On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 11:07 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 15:39 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:05:16PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > The first is with virtio-scsi between what has been merged in scsi.git > > > for "virtio_scsi: use cmd_size", and the "virtio-scsi: Enable DIF/DIX > > > modes in SCSI host LLD" below. (Adding Paolo + hch CC') > > > > Just curious, why did we decide to take the virtio-scsi patches > > through the target tree? Seems like taking them through the scsi > > tree would have been a lot simpler. > > > > It's a matter of keeping changes together so they could be run from a > single branch, without having to merge the entirety of scsi.git in order > to test a new target features involving some manner of LLD changes. > > Stuff like the qla2xxx target T10 PI where OK to go through scsi.git, > because they really didn't depend on target changes, but for things like > virtio-scsi + vhost-scsi T10 PI, or the iser-initiator + iser-target T10 > PI data_length changes where one can't function without the other, > breaking up initiator / target patches across trees will just end up > making my work-flow unnecessarily more difficult. > > I'd say identifying these types of merge conflicts is what linux-next is > supposed to be for, and at least this time around the conflicts ended up > being straight-forward to resolve with srf's patches. > ... with SFR's patches, of course. ;) --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
