On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:58:41AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I'll take a look at the umount assert while you're asleep. 348 is > a pretty new test, so I doubt it's a regrewssion. > > > (You'll note I didn't merge the duplicate "xfs: improve handling of busy > > extents in the low-level allocator"; if you want that done, please let me > > know.) > > Yes, it should be folded into the first patch of that name and descriptions. > It contains the fixups that Brian requested. Actually the tree seems to have both now that I'm actually reading through it. But if you happen to rebase again please fold the second into the first. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
