From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46297 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932305AbcKNMqe (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 07:46:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:46:30 +0100 From: David Sterba To: Chris Mason Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.9-rc5 Message-ID: <20161114124630.GM12522@suse.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <7efb4535-dbd8-1c7c-c6f0-0dda234077e2@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <7efb4535-dbd8-1c7c-c6f0-0dda234077e2@fb.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:45:10PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On 11/10/2016 10:00 AM, David Sterba wrote: > > Hi, > > > > two minor error handling fixes and one fix for balance sttus item that goes > > back to 4.4. > > > > The branch continues from my last pull that went to Linus' tree, so it would > > be a good idea to do the same as before. I've added a signed tag for branch. > > Looking at this again before sending off: > > btrfs: remove redundant check of btrfs_iget return value > > Is really a cleanup and we should wait for the merge window. Since this > means rebasing the pull, I'm happy to send the others on Monday. Technically it is a cleanup, but I look at it more from the correctness perspective and based of feelings that "this looks relvant for rc". But postponing for 4.10 fine for me.