From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] autofs - fix log print messages Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:50:06 +0800 Message-ID: <1415850606.2631.19.camel@perseus.themaw.net> References: <20141111012954.25773.4002.stgit@perseus.themaw.net> <1415676341.16070.0.camel@perches.com> <1415684245.2486.9.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <1415684989.16070.2.camel@perches.com> <1415685712.2486.17.camel@perseus.themaw.net> <20141112150700.bbb0d82dad1b133fccc1a0ec@linux-foundation.org> <1415837458.2631.13.camel@perseus.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joe Perches , linux-fsdevel , autofs mailing list , Kernel Mailing List To: Andrew Morton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1415837458.2631.13.camel@perseus.themaw.net> Sender: autofs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 08:10 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > > > The tree which these patches were based on seem to have more than a > > plain rename. For example I get > > Right, looks like something has gone missing along the way. Ahh .. I get it now. > The tree the patches are against is just a local clone of the Linus tree > with the patches I'd sent previously applied. > > Folding these recent patches into the original series and sending one > series only that applies on the current Linus tree should sort out the > problem. > > > > > --- fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h > > +++ fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h Looks like the patches I sent on 3rd Dec, which is what Joe commented on, were missed. It's probably better for me to start over once its decided how I'll be sending the patches. Ian