Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 May 2022 18:54:12 +0100 | From | Phillip Potter <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: remove last remaining traces of IDE documentation |
| |
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 11:32:41AM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > [Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: remove last remaining traces of IDE documentation] On 29/04/2022 (Fri 00:43) Phillip Potter wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 12:59:17PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > > [Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: remove last remaining traces of IDE documentation] On 27/04/2022 (Wed 08:50) Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > > > > > The Documentation/ide part of this is already dealt with in docs-next; > > > > obviously there was more to do, though :) > > > > > > Ah, I'd checked mainline master of today but not sfr's next. > > > > > > Here is a delta diff against today's linux-next > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Paul. > > > -- > > > > > > From ecb86eb357e5151ba5f7e7d172c65d07d88c4c39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> > > > Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:45:50 -0400 > > > Subject: [PATCH -next] Documentation: remove last remaining traces of IDE > > > information > > > > > > The last traces of the IDE driver went away in commit b7fb14d3ac63 > > > ("ide: remove the legacy ide driver") but it left behind some traces > > > of old documentation. > > > > > > As luck would have it Randy and I would submit similar changes within > > > a week of each other to address this. As Randy's commit is in the doc > > > tree already - this delta is just the stuff my removal contained that > > > was not in Randy's IDE doc removal. > > [...] > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > Apologies if I'm missing something, but this updated diff still seems to > > conflict with Randy's earlier one. As cdrom doesn't get a lot of churn, > > I agreed with Jens that I would usually just send on all accepted > > patches at once to him and he would take them via his tree (I currently > > have four accepted patches, including your two others and Randy's patch, > > plus one other). > > > > Anyhow, please could this be corrected? Or me shown the error of my ways > > (always possible I'm making a mistake) :-) Many thanks. > > Are you working off linux-next? If not, what is your baseline and what > are you running and what do you see? For example, the commands below: > > The ecb86 that I sent in this e-mail still applies on linux-next of > today which contains Jens next as you can seed: >
I was yes, the point I was trying to make (poorly) is that your patch conflicts with Randy's patch which itself is not yet in linux-next, as normally I send everything together at the start of the merge window to Jens, as I don't have my own kernel.org tree yet, and usually I only get one or two patches in a cycle anyway.
This is not your fault, you couldn't have been expected to know this in retrospect, and I should probably look into getting my own tree/GPG key sorted to alleviate this problem in future.
In the meantime, if you're comfortable with the idea, I can just resolve the conflict myself when I send the patches onto Jens this time and include patch 3/3 pre-fixed up. Merge window will be fairly soon anyway.
Thanks, Phil
| |