On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:19:19PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:04:59AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in > > fs/ext4/extents.c between rebased versions of commits from Linus' and the > > ext4 trees and the same commits from the vfs tree. > > > > I fixed it up (I just used the version from Linus' and the ext4 trees) > > and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). > > > > Al, this is why I asked you about checking with Ted about his tree being > > rebased after you merged it into yours ... > > Sorry, Al, I hadn't been aware you wanted to carrying some of these > changes. I had mentioned that I was planning on carrying them in the > ext4 tree and including them for 3.15 because some of them were fixing > bugs that had been introduced in the merge window. Since no one > objected, I thought everyone was on the same page about that plan. *rechecks* I have Cc'd you on this: <quote> Subject: Re: linus-next stats (Re: Linux 3.15-rc1 out, merge window closed) Message-ID: <20140417203412.GB18016@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [snip] one non-trivial in ext4 that I've dealt with by merging a piece of ext4 branch up to the relevant point. As long as ext4.git#dev isn't rebased, everything should remain fine, when/if it does I'll just redo that merge. BTW, ext4 side of that thing is *still* not quite right - playing with rlimit allows one to smuggle an unaligned write past that check... </quote> I'll rebase that thing... -- 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
