Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1403296 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-18 23:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-05-19 02:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
incoming merge conflict to linux-next Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> - 2016-05-18 23:20 +0200
Re: incoming merge conflict to linux-next David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> - 2016-05-19 01:00 +0200
Re: incoming merge conflict to linux-next Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-05-19 02:20 +0200
| From | Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 23:20 +0200 |
| Subject | incoming merge conflict to linux-next |
| Message-ID | <rAh2N-7md-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Stephen, Dave Sterba's tree in linux-next has a few btrfs patches that we're not sending yet into Linus. We've got an update for Josef's enospc work that'll get sent in next week. So he prepped a pull for me that merged up a number of his branches but didn't include Josef's new code. It has all been in -next for some time, and then I put some fixes from Filipe on top. Long story short, you'll get a merge conflict from my next branch: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next I've got the sample resolution in next-merge: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next-merge Please let us know if you have any problems. -chris
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 01:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rAiBA-8gC-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1403296 |
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:10:43PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > Dave Sterba's tree in linux-next has a few btrfs patches that we're not > sending yet into Linus. We've got an update for Josef's enospc work > that'll get sent in next week. > > So he prepped a pull for me that merged up a number of his branches but > didn't include Josef's new code. It has all been in -next for some > time, and then I put some fixes from Filipe on top. JFYI, the enospc branch was not the way to Linus because there were some unexpected warnings, the v2 patch update hasn't fixed them. So I won't redo the for-chris branch yet, but will keep the enospc patchset in my for-next for other testing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 02:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rAjQZ-Li-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1403296 |
Hi Chris, On Wed, 18 May 2016 17:10:43 -0400 Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> wrote: > > Dave Sterba's tree in linux-next has a few btrfs patches that we're not > sending yet into Linus. We've got an update for Josef's enospc work > that'll get sent in next week. > > So he prepped a pull for me that merged up a number of his branches but > didn't include Josef's new code. It has all been in -next for some > time, and then I put some fixes from Filipe on top. > > Long story short, you'll get a merge conflict from my next branch: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next > > I've got the sample resolution in next-merge: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next-merge > > Please let us know if you have any problems. A bit of a mess, but I sorted it out, thanks for the test merge. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web