On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 15:33 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 15:12 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 13:00 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: <SNIP> > > > OK, this gives us a cross tree dependency on the SCSI header split > > > patches. Nic, if you base your tree off this commit in mine, I'll make > > > sure to push early in the merge window. > > > > > > commit ba929992522b6d1f866b7021bc50da66f8fdd743 > > > Author: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Fri May 8 10:11:12 2015 +0200 > > > > > > target: Minimize SCSI header #include directives > > > > > > > Rebasing one subsystem's for-next atop another subsystem's for-next is a > > sure fire way to cause Linus to become irate. > > No, he's fine with it (as long as the trees aren't entangled when > submitted). We used to do it all the time with the block and SCSI trees; > it's why the scsi postmerge tree existed. > ... > > But it's not even necessary here anyways, just fold Stephen's patch to > > add scsi_proto.h to target_core_fabric_configfs.c into the original > > change, and be done with it. > > I can certainly do that, but other updates to the target tree could > cause this problem to reoccur in different files. > target_core_fabric_lib.c is the only place where SCSI_PROTOCOL_* is used and I don't expect this to change before -rc1, so it should be OK to just fold into the original. -- 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
