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

[Jens Axboe]

On 01/21/2016 03:46 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:34:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >    drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >    b5875222de2f ("NVMe: IO ending fixes on surprise removal")
> >
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> >
> >    5bae7f73d378 ("nvme: move namespace scanning to common code")
> >
> > from the block tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (the code was moved - I added the fix patch below) and
> > can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
> >
> > However, there was another part to the former patch that I could not
> > quite figure out how to reproduce - the fix to nvme_dev_remove().
> >
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:21:38 +1100
> > Subject: [PATCH] nvme: merge fix up for ns code movement
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > index 1437ff36e91c..1375a83593b5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > @@ -1118,8 +1118,17 @@ static void nvme_ns_remove(struct nvme_ns *ns)
> >   	bool kill = nvme_io_incapable(ns->ctrl) &&
> >   			!blk_queue_dying(ns->queue);
> >
> > -	if (kill)
> > +	if (kill) {
> >   		blk_set_queue_dying(ns->queue);
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * The controller was shutdown first if we got here through
> > +		 * device removal. The shutdown may requeue outstanding
> > +		 * requests. These need to be aborted immediately so
> > +		 * del_gendisk doesn't block indefinitely for their completion.
> > +		 */
> > +		blk_mq_abort_requeue_list(ns->queue);
> > +	}
> >   	if (ns->disk->flags & GENHD_FL_UP) {
> >   		if (blk_get_integrity(ns->disk))
> >   			blk_integrity_unregister(ns->disk);
> > --
> > 2.6.4
>
> So, I have been applying the above merge fix patch since Dec 31 and now
> wonder if Linus needs to be told about it.  Also noone every replied
> about the nvme_dev_remove() part.

Linus is usually pretty damn good at figuring out, and seems to have fun 
doing it. So I usually just defer to acking a merge resolution, but even 
that is rarely needed. It was more of a mess this time around between 
mainline and the nvme branch than I would have liked though, but mostly 
due to timing of branching.


--
Jens Axboe