Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the tree

[Jens Axboe]

On 11/01/2013 02:41 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 03:27 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/01/2013 02:22 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Jens,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:10:43 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2013 09:20 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
>>>>> drivers/block/loop.c between commit 2486740b52fd ("loop: use aio to
>>>>> perform io on the underlying file") from the aio-direct tree and commit
>>>>> ed2d2f9a8265 ("block: Abstract out bvec iterator") from the block tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fixed it up (I think - see below - I have also attached the final
>>>>> resulting file) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is
>>>>> required).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What tree is this from? It'd be a lot more convenient to fold that loop
>>>> patch into my tree, especially since the block tree in linux-next failed
>>>> after this merge.
>>>
>>> I can only agree with you.  It is from the aio-direct tree (probably
>>> misnamed by me) (git://github.com/kleikamp/linux-shaggy.git#for-next) run
>>> by Dave Kleikamp.
>>
>> Dave, input requested.
>>
>> In any case, I would suggest dropping the aio-direct tree instead of the
>> entire block tree for coverage purposes, if merge or build failures
>> happen because of it.
> 
> I've had these patches in linux-next since August, and I'd really like
> to push them in the 3.13 merge window.
> 
> Are there other problems besides this merge issue? I'll take a closer
> look at Stephen's merge patch and see if I find any other issues, but I
> really don't want to pull these patches out of linux-next now.

I'm not saying that the patches should be dropped or not go into 3.13.
What I'm saying is that if the choice is between having the bio and
blk-mq stuff in linux-next or an addon to the loop driver, the decision
should be quite clear.

So we've three immediate options:

1) You base it on top of the block tree
2) I carry the loop updates
3) You hand Stephen a merge patch for the resulting merge of the two

It's one of the problems with too-many-tree, imho. You end up with
dependencies that could have been solved if the work had been applied in
the right upstream tree. Sometimes that's not even enough though, if you
end up crossing boundaries.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/