Re: [GIT PULL v4 00/21] libnd: non-volatile memory device support

From: Dan Williams
Date: Wed May 27 2015 - 18:52:44 EST


On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jens, please pull from...
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djbw/nvdimm tags/libnd-for-jens
>>
>> ...to receive the libnd sub-system for the next merge window. This has
>> been through 3 rounds of review. Incremental diffstats and links to
>> previous postings:
>>
>> v1: 39 files changed, 13102 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2015-April/000484.html
>>
>> v2: 30 files changed, 3166 insertions(+), 3935 deletions(-)
>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2015-April/000574.html
>>
>> v3: 33 files changed, 2202 insertions(+), 1233 deletions(-)
>> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2015-May/000804.html
>>
>> v4: Full diffstat since v3
>>
>> Documentation/blockdev/libnd.txt | 2 +-
>> arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 ++
>> arch/x86/kernel/pmem.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> drivers/acpi/nfit.c | 20 ++++----
>> drivers/acpi/nfit.h | 4 +-
>> drivers/block/Kconfig | 8 ---
>> drivers/block/Makefile | 1 -
>> drivers/block/e820_pmem.c | 100 --------------------------------------
>> drivers/block/nd/Kconfig | 10 ++++
>> drivers/block/nd/btt.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/block/nd/namespace_devs.c | 5 +-
>> drivers/block/nd/pmem.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/block/nd/test/nfit.c | 10 ++--
>> include/acpi/acuuid.h | 16 +++---
>> 14 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 171 deletions(-)
>> delete mode 100644 drivers/block/e820_pmem.c
>>
>> 1/ Kill drivers/block/e820_pmem.c, we can just register pmem
>> regions directly from arch/x86/kernel/pmem.c without need for an
>> intermediary driver (Christoph).
>>
>> 2/ Update to latest NFIT UUID definitions (Toshi). This
>> merges cleanly with, and is identical to the include/acpi/
>> NFIT enabling in Rafael's linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge branch.
>
> Well, I didn't expect you to send a pull request for this right away
> to be honest.

No worries, we can address these concerns now...

> Can you please pull from my acpica branch and rebase your patches on
> top of that by any chance?

I noticed that bleeding-edge rebased from the last time I checked is
that branch stable enough to use as a baseline?

> And no, the "merges cleanly" part isn't sufficient as it'll create a
> mess of a history if merged together like that. Can we do that
> properly instead?

If I merge 'bleeding-edge' on top of v4.1-rc5 followed by this branch
and do a "git log include/acpi/acuuid.h" then the full history from
the 'bleeding-edge' branch shows up.

I'm fine with doing the rebase, but I don't quite see the mess to
which you are referring. Especially compared to the thrash of moving
our test baseline.
--
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/