On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:05:26AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:43 AM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > A question regarding the customs in such situations - are previous > > > Reviewed-by/Acked-by normally kept across rebases like that? > > > > Yeah, unless there were big changes, keep the reviewed/acked-by lines. > > > > Otherwise you'd never be able to handle different people giving > > slightly different feedback about separate issues. > > OK... Miklos, I've pushed #ovl-candidate, with equivalent of the beginning > of your branch. I'm *not* saying that I've no remaining issues > with your series - this is just how I'd prefer to resolve that group > of conflicts. > > Everything past "vfs: simplify dentry_open()" could live on top of that > one, or its equivalent. > > I'm going to put #work-open3 into -next, let's figure out what to do with > the conflicts; what I can promise is never-rebased status for #for-ovl > (the beginning of #work-open3 merged into #ovl-candidate). ... 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.
