On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 09:20:09AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Christian, > > On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 16:02:33 +0200 Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The vfs.super tree originally contained a good chunk of the btrfs tree > > as a merge - as mentioned elsewhere - since we had intended to depend on > > work that Christoph did a few months ago. We had allowed btrfs to carry > > the patches themselves. > > > > But it since became clear that btrfs/for-next likely does not contain > > any of the patches there's zero reason for the original merge. So the > > merge is dropped. It's not great because it's a late change but it's > > better than bringing in a completely pointless merge. > > Can you please update what you are including in linux-next to match > what you are asking Linus to merge. I pushed it out right when I got up. Sorry for the slight delay. I hope the reason for this late change are not unreasonable. Let me know in case there's a better solution I didn't think of for such a change.
