[PATCH v2 0/5] Clean up SDMA engine code

[ira.weiny]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:13:49PM -0800, gregkh at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:48:03PM -0500, ira.weiny wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:10:08PM -0500, ira.weiny at intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny at intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Various improvements to the SDMA engine code.
> > 
> > Greg,
> > 
> > Thanks for reviewing and accepting our patches to staging-testing.  I apologize
> > for the conflicts we had between the 3 of us submitting.  However, in
> > attempting to rework an internal branch to ensure this does not happen again I
> > believe there were more conflicts than their should have been due to patches
> > being accepted out of order.
> > 
> > For example, I found the following error in your staging tree below.
> > 
> > This series you applied in the following order which causes a build failure on
> > the middle commit -- a0d4069.
> > 
> > 483119a staging/rdma/hfi1: Unconditionally clean-up SDMA queues
> > def8228 staging/rdma/hfi1: Convert to use get_user_pages_fast
> > a0d4069 staging/rdma/hfi1: Add page lock limit check for SDMA requests
> > faa98b8 staging/rdma/hfi1: Clean-up unnecessary goto statements
> > 6a5464f staging/rdma/hfi1: Detect SDMA transmission error early
> > 
> > The order as submitted was:
> > 
> > staging/rdma/hfi1: Convert to use get_user_pages_fast
> > staging/rdma/hfi1: Unconditionally clean-up SDMA queues
> > staging/rdma/hfi1: Clean-up unnecessary goto statements
> > staging/rdma/hfi1: Detect SDMA transmission error early
> > staging/rdma/hfi1: Add page lock limit check for SDMA requests
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Do I need to resolve this somehow?  Or is this something you resolve while the
> > patches are in staging-testing?
> > 
> > Is there something we need to do in the cover letter of a patch series to
> > ensure order?  Perhaps my cover letter implied these were not ordered?  If so,
> > I again apologize.
> 
> Did you number your patches?

Yes, sent with git-send-email.

http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2015-December/thread.html#82509

> That's the only way to ensure that they
> are applied in the correct order, that's what I sort on to apply them.
> If you don't order them, I randomly guess, or just reject them...
> 
> All seems to build now, right?

Yes all builds now.  I just did not know if as part of testing an incremental
build check would then reject the patch.

Ira