diff for duplicates of <1458939566.5501.5.camel@intel.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 6e60f49..108ab8f 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -25,3 +25,7 @@ __blockdev_direct_IO also fails with a *different* error, I chose to
 return -EIO because that was the 'first' error we hit and caused us to
 fallback.. (Does this even seem reasonable?) And if so, do we want to
 push back this decision too, to the callers?
+_______________________________________________
+xfs mailing list
+xfs@oss.sgi.com
+http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index a3366a8..69f9f52 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -5,22 +5,21 @@
  "Subject\0Re: [PATCH 5/5] dax: handle media errors in dax_do_io\0"
  "Date\0Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:59:30 +0000\0"
  "To\0hch@infradead.org <hch@infradead.org>\0"
- "Cc\0linux-block@vger.kernel.org <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>"
-  xfs@oss.sgi.com <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
+ "Cc\0axboe@fb.com <axboe@fb.com>"
+  jack@suse.cz <jack@suse.cz>
   linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org <linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org>
+  xfs@oss.sgi.com <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
+  linux-block@vger.kernel.org <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
   linux-mm@kvack.org <linux-mm@kvack.org>
   viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
+  ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
+  linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
   Williams
   Dan J <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
-  axboe@fb.com <axboe@fb.com>
-  akpm@linux-foundation.org <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
-  linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
-  ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
   linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
+  akpm@linux-foundation.org <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
   Wilcox
-  Matthew R <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>
-  david@fromorbit.com <david@fromorbit.com>
- " jack@suse.cz <jack@suse.cz>\0"
+ " Matthew R <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
  "On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 03:45 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:\n"
@@ -49,6 +48,10 @@
  "__blockdev_direct_IO also fails with a *different* error, I chose to\n"
  "return -EIO because that was the 'first' error we hit and caused us to\n"
  "fallback.. (Does this even seem reasonable?) And if so, do we want to\n"
- push back this decision too, to the callers?
+ "push back this decision too, to the callers?\n"
+ "_______________________________________________\n"
+ "xfs mailing list\n"
+ "xfs@oss.sgi.com\n"
+ http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
 
-1b8b7ad9e962cf0e1ea1d625ad65444d7400aa1022b934ec398b5c7ca00500fe
+19b00c75afae5d0e7353d67fbe1971992e19a1887f1324f17c6c1d16f0135137
