[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxtS1jyefWXG+H6UjfC5KaqPOgTf3imHxL1iS1avJP5Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2018 09:50:05 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] afs: Fixes and development
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:29 PM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
> Here are a set of AFS patches, a few fixes, but mostly development. The fixes
> are:
So I pulled this after your updated fscache pull request, and I notice
that these three commits are duplicate (not shared):
fscache: Attach the index key and aux data to the cookie
fscache: Pass object size in rather than calling back for it
fscache: Maintain a catalogue of allocated cookies
and partly as a result I get some trivial conflicts.
Now, the conflicts really do look entirely trivial, and that's not the
problem, but the fact that you *didn't* re-send the AFS pull request
makes me wonder if you perhaps didn't want me to pull it after all?
So I decided to not do the resolution, and instead just verify with
you that you still want this pulled?
No need to rebase, no need to do anything at all, really, except reply
with "yes I want you to pull this" or "no, the fscache pull updates
meant that I want you to do something else, hold off".
Pls advice.
(I may decide later to pull anyway, because I *think* you want me to
pull, but thought to ask in case you're online and answer quickly).
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists