On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:02:13AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > So yeah that's because I was worried about strong conflicts. What kind of > > approach > > do you prefer then to solve that kind of issue? Do you prefer that we > > create a seperate > > branch and deal with non trivial nor small conflicts on merge window time? > > I'd indeed rather see a separate branch, and deal with the conflicts. > > And in fact I think you over-estimate the conflicts. The smp function > naming changes were trivial as far as outside users were concerned, > and while the "stop abusing fileds in csd" might have clashed more > with the rest of the block changes (because they were actually to the > block functions), I doubt it would have been painful. In fact, looking > at "fifo_time" there should be no conflicts at all, and the queuelist > changes look like they would have had a *trivial* conflict with > "blk-mq: merge blk_mq_insert_request and blk_mq_run_request" just > because there were changes nearby. Even that is debatable - it's > possible git would just have resolved that one automatically too. > > So I think that the patches from you and Honza could easily have been > in another branch, and had trivial or no conflicts with the other > block changes. > > Linus
Yeah indeed. I think maybe I started to work on top of a stale tree and got confused with conflicts against pre v3.13 commits that were actually merged upstream for a while already. But you're right, looking at it closer, the real conflicts against pending -block patches weren't that bad actually Anyway, thanks for pulling it in the end, I'll be more careful! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
