On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 10:59:32PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Tejun Heo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 10:13:59AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:

quoted

Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:09 AM, Tejun Heo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 04:00:08PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

Hello, Andy.

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:22:51PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

Tejun, since Vinod applied all necessary patches into his tree, the
series now has just a dependency to whatever branch / tag he marks for
it.
Do we have a chance to see the SATA series be applied in your tree?

Applied 1-22 to libata/for-4.7.  There was a couple trivial conflicts
which I resolved while applying but it'd be great if you can check
whether everything looks okay.

 https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tj/libata.git/log/?h=for-4.7

Oops, build failure.  Reverted for now.

I suppose you have to pull material from Vinod.

The failure the build bot reported is due to the DMA patches not being
in the tree.

Which tree should I pull?

slave-dma [1], branch topic/dw. But I think Vinod can tell us which
tag/branch will be immutable. Vinod?

Please use branch topic/dw. I will not rebase this before sending to Linus.

Also if you prefer a signed tag, then please use dmaengine-topic-dw-4.7-rc1

[1] http://git.infradead.org/users/vkoul/slave-dma.git

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod