[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230511-fragil-lohnt-618b71af4669@brauner>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 20:04:54 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Seth Forshee <sforshee@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the
vfs-idmapping tree
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:07:50AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 06:48:39 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, since Linus didn't like the original approach, it was redone
> > and that particular patch was originally forgotten and then redone
> > without the 'nonblock' variable. So you should just ignore the
> > old version, and Christian should just drop that branch from his
> > for-next tree as it's dead.
>
> That appears to have been done now, thanks.
Yeah, sorry. LSFMM makes it a bit hard to be consistent about my
replies and after my first reply I only had rolled vfs/for-next rolled
forward but not vfs-idmapping/for-next. The latter repo will likely go
away soonish and then only vfs/* will be left.
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists