[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100601204942.134965e5.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:49:42 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>,
drbd-dev@...bit.com, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the drbd tree with Linus' tree
HI Jens,
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:45:15 +0200 Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com> wrote:
>
> So the pipe patches were the same, the problem was that a fix for a
> missing pipe_unlock() had gone into mainline and for-linus/for-next
> weren't synced up to that. I'm guessing you pull drbd before for-next
> and that is why it showed up there.
Actually, I merge the drbd tree after the block tree and this fell to the
drbd tree only because your for-next branch had not been updated (and I
don't merge your for-linus branch).
> BTW, I would recommend moving for-next from the block tree up before any
> potential other trees being based off it if that is the case.
That is already true.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists