Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the target-updates tree

[Nicholas A. Bellinger]

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-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/