Re: [git pull] mount API series

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [git pull] mount API series
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:07:17 -0700
Cc: dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx, swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx, john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, alan.christopher.jenkins@xxxxxxxxx, ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20181101220518.GT32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:05 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Do you mind if we end up with work.mount rebased?
> The usual objections re testing in -next do not apply in this case,
> AFAICS...

I was assuming that the work.mount branch would be entirely re-done, yes.

              Linus

References:
- [git pull] mount API series
  - From: Al Viro
- Re: [git pull] mount API series
  - From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: [git pull] mount API series
  - From: Steven Whitehouse
- Re: [git pull] mount API series
  - From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: [git pull] mount API series
  - From: David Howells
- Re: [git pull] mount API series
  - From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: [git pull] mount API series
  - From: Al Viro

Prev by Date: Re: [git pull] mount API series
Next by Date: [PATCH v2 12/12] f2fs: fs-verity support
Previous by thread: Re: [git pull] mount API series
Next by thread: Re: [git pull] mount API series
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Ext4 Filesystem] [Union Filesystem] [Filesystem Testing] [Ceph Users] [Ecryptfs] [AutoFS] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [Security] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Cachefs] [Reiser Filesystem] [Linux RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper] [CEPH Development]

Powered by Linux