On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 07:55 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 01:50:26PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 06:34:16 +0300 Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry Doug, but it is not expected at all for the code which will
> > > go to 4.14.
> > >
> > > Both patches in question were targeted for 4.13 and you was
> > > expected to
> > > see the merge conflicts during last month or so, prior to merge
> > > window of 4.13.
> > >
> > > In 4.14, you should base your tree on Linus's tree and don't have
> > > ANY
> > > conflicts in your subsystem, between ANY subsystems and
> > > especially
> > > Linus, so we will be able to develop and test.
> > >
> > > For me, this merge conflict puts a large sign, that your tree is
> > > not ready for 4.14.
> > >
> > > Please base your tree on Linus's tree.
> >
> > And if these commits are destined for v4.14, then they should not
> > have
> > been in linux-next yet.
>
> See, this announcement,
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-rdma&m=149980130008834&w=2
Yes, and the patch in question is one of the many that I pulled out as
fixes that I would end up submitting during the -rc cycle. Hence why I
put the for-next tag on it.
--
Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
