Re: Merge of the 'write_inode' branch from the VFS tree

[Al Viro]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:02:35PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 15:48 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > Or I can do a new branch, put updated pair of patches there (hch has sent
> > the updated variants my way) and ask you to rebuild NFS tree.  Which will
> > also suck, since it adds PITA for you and you are completely innocent in
> > that clusterfuck.
> > 
> > Suggestions?  I'd love to get out of that mess with minimal PITA for
> > everyone involved and minimally messed tree...
> 
> Hi Al,
> 
> I'd be fine with rebuilding the NFS tree. I have all the patches which
> depend on write_inode in their own separate branch anyway, so I'd only
> have to rebase that branch and then merge it with the main NFS client
> tree...

Ehh...  Just after I've sent a pull request for backmerge variant...
Anyway, I've put rebased variant in the same tree, branch called
write_inode2.  Same diffstat, same shortlog (sans merges).  Either
branch will do; write_inode2 obviously has cleaner history.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/