On Tue, Jun 01 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > HI Jens, > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:45:15 +0200 Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So the pipe patches were the same, the problem was that a fix for a > > missing pipe_unlock() had gone into mainline and for-linus/for-next > > weren't synced up to that. I'm guessing you pull drbd before for-next > > and that is why it showed up there. > > Actually, I merge the drbd tree after the block tree and this fell to the > drbd tree only because your for-next branch had not been updated (and I > don't merge your for-linus branch). Ah I see, then it all adds up. > > BTW, I would recommend moving for-next from the block tree up before any > > potential other trees being based off it if that is the case. > > That is already true. Good! -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
