[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100305182924.GY30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:29:24 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Merge of the 'write_inode' branch from the VFS tree
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:02:35PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 15:48 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > Or I can do a new branch, put updated pair of patches there (hch has sent
> > the updated variants my way) and ask you to rebuild NFS tree. Which will
> > also suck, since it adds PITA for you and you are completely innocent in
> > that clusterfuck.
> >
> > Suggestions? I'd love to get out of that mess with minimal PITA for
> > everyone involved and minimally messed tree...
>
> Hi Al,
>
> I'd be fine with rebuilding the NFS tree. I have all the patches which
> depend on write_inode in their own separate branch anyway, so I'd only
> have to rebase that branch and then merge it with the main NFS client
> tree...
Ehh... Just after I've sent a pull request for backmerge variant...
Anyway, I've put rebased variant in the same tree, branch called
write_inode2. Same diffstat, same shortlog (sans merges). Either
branch will do; write_inode2 obviously has cleaner history.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists