[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOssrKf60FHqgG6pB5zOP7iV-qdHdDUODdG7SVpoNh3Pipo=6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:25:50 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: vfs / overlayfs conflict resolution for linux-next
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 03:56:37 +0100 Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> ... and now it even builds. Said that, I would really like to hear something
>> from you - I can duplicate the entire overlayfs-next and merge it into
>> my #for-next and ask Steven to use that instead of your tree, but I very
>> much dislike going over your head like that.
>>
>> I realize that you'd been away for a while and probably are digging yourself
>> from under the piles of mail, but it's getting late in the cycle and I want
>> to get #for-next into reasonably sane shape. Please, look through that
>> thing and respond.
>
> Almost everything has been removed from the overlayfs tree in
> linux-next today. The only commit there currently is:
>
> 67810693077a ovl: fix wrong use of impure dir cache in ovl_iterate()
Al, thank you very much for taking care of this. I've already begone
to go through those and will finish up the merge, hopefully today.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists