On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:41:28PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 08:49 +0200, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:41:27PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

Hi James,

Today's linux-next merge of the scsi tree got a conflict in:

  drivers/staging/unisys/visorhba/visorhba_main.c

between commits:

  781facd05eb9 ("staging: unisys: visorhba: visorhba_main.c: fixed comment formatting issues")

from the staging tree and commit:

  7bc4e528d9f6 ("scsi: visorhba: sanitze private device data allocation")

from the scsi tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

Ick, messy merge, thanks for doing this.

Hello Greg,

If you agree with the following, please communicate this to the visorhba
authors:

<snip>

No reason you can't tell them this yourself, right?  :)

* Most SCSI drivers exist under drivers/scsi, including the virtio-scsi and
  xen-scsifront drivers. So why has the visorhba driver been added under
  unisys/visorhba?

That's because right now it's still a staging driver.  Also, there are
other scsi drivers in other portions of the kernel tree (like the USB
driver), so there's no hard rule that all scsi drivers have to be under
drivers/scsi/

<snip>

Please provide this review to them, on the properly mailing list, I'm
sure they would be glad to get it.

thanks,

greg k-h