linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 5.10

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201015114011.1f5f985a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:40:11 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 5.10

Hi David,

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 22:25:02 +0200 David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com> wrote:
>
> Mishaps:
> 
> - commit 62cf5391209a ("btrfs: move btrfs_rm_dev_replace_free_srcdev
>   outside of all locks") is a rebase leftover after the patch got
>   merged to 5.9-rc8 as a466c85edc6f ("btrfs: move
>   btrfs_rm_dev_replace_free_srcdev outside of all locks"), the
>   remaining part is trivial and the patch is in the middle of the
>   series so I'm keeping it there instead of rebasing

And yet, this entire pull request has been rebased since what was in
linux-next on Tuesday (and what would still be there today except I
dropped it because of several conflicts) ...  it looks like it was
rebased a week ago, but then never included in your "for-next" branch.
So I supposed it has had your internal testing, at least.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped