[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240528110737.730a8f40@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 11:07:37 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Kuan-Wei Chiu
<visitorckw@...il.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List
<linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Matthew Mirvish <matthew@...2.xyz>, Andrew
Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the refactor-heap tree with the
block tree
Hi all,
On Thu, 9 May 2024 15:27:45 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the refactor-heap tree got conflicts in:
>
> drivers/md/bcache/bset.c
> drivers/md/bcache/bset.h
> drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 3a861560ccb3 ("bcache: fix variable length array abuse in btree_iter")
>
> from the block tree and commit:
>
> afa5721abaaa ("bcache: Remove heap-related macros and switch to generic min_heap")
>
> from the refactor-heap tree.
>
> Ok, these conflicts are too extensive, so I am dropping the refactor-heap
> tree for today. I suggest you all get together and sort something out.
It looks as though the patches from the refactor-heap tree are now being
carried in the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree. Should I
rmeove the refactor-heap tree from linux-next? It *will* be dropped for
today at least.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists