From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:11:02 +0100
Message-ID: <20150128171102.GC17528@lst.de>
References: <20150127145754.03e711a3@canb.auug.org.au> <54C70D52.6030208@kernel.dk> <20150127045422.GY29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150127045422.GY29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:54:22AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> I don't mind opening a never-rebased branch for generic iov_iter-related stuff;
> if you prefer to handle it that way - just tell.  The first two patches
> from that series would definitely go there; as for the rest... no preferences
> here.

It might make sense to just keep the VFS patches in your tree.
The target ones also are something I'd prefer if it goes through Nic
with additional review.  In addition they aren't really critical,
so if you merge the prep patches now we can feed the rest through
the proper trees in the .21 merge window.