On 04/07/2017 10:50 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 13:29 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
>>> patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and
On 04/07/2017 10:50 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 13:29 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
>>> patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 21:00 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Bart Van Assche writes:
> > Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
> > patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and
> > reworked after Logan's patches are
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 21:00 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Bart Van Assche writes:
> > Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
> > patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and
> > reworked after Logan's patches are upstream?
>
> Obviously things
Bart Van Assche writes:
> Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
> patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and
> reworked after Logan's patches are upstream?
Obviously things break the minute you go on vacation. I'm
Bart Van Assche writes:
> Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
> patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and
> reworked after Logan's patches are upstream?
Obviously things break the minute you go on vacation. I'm back
now. What's the current
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 13:29 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
> > patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and reworked
> > after Logan's patches are upstream?
>
>
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 13:29 -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
> > patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and reworked
> > after Logan's patches are upstream?
>
>
Hi Bart,
On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
> patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and reworked
> after Logan's patches are upstream?
Yeah, Greg took my patchset around a few maintainers
Hi Bart,
On 07/04/17 09:49 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Sorry that I had not yet noticed Logan's patch series. Should my two
> patches that conflict with Logan's patch series be dropped and reworked
> after Logan's patches are upstream?
Yeah, Greg took my patchset around a few maintainers
On 04/06/2017 10:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ac1ddc584e98 ("scsi: utilize new cdev_device_add helper function")
>
> from the char-misc tree and
On 04/06/2017 10:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
>
> between commit:
>
> ac1ddc584e98 ("scsi: utilize new cdev_device_add helper function")
>
> from the char-misc tree and
Hi Martin,
Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
between commit:
ac1ddc584e98 ("scsi: utilize new cdev_device_add helper function")
from the char-misc tree and commit:
c02465fa13b6 ("scsi: osd_uld: Check scsi_device_get() return
Hi Martin,
Today's linux-next merge of the scsi-mkp tree got a conflict in:
drivers/scsi/osd/osd_uld.c
between commit:
ac1ddc584e98 ("scsi: utilize new cdev_device_add helper function")
from the char-misc tree and commit:
c02465fa13b6 ("scsi: osd_uld: Check scsi_device_get() return
14 matches
Mail list logo