From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:13:39 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig To: mchristi@redhat.com Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, philipp.reisner@linbit.com, lars.ellenberg@linbit.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, osd-dev@open-osd.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35 v4] separate operations from flags in the bio/request structs Message-ID: <20160229171339.GA17755@infradead.org> References: <1456343292-14535-1-git-send-email-mchristi@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1456343292-14535-1-git-send-email-mchristi@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Any reason you've dropped my ACK for the previous version? Jens, is this something you're fine with? Would be great to figure out a way to get this into 4.6. There's probably going to be plenty of conflicts, so having some sort of stable base tree would be nice.. (Talking about conflicts, seems like the block for-linus and for-next trees already conflict quite a bit..)