From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 05:15:55 +0000 Message-ID: <20150129051555.GC29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20150127145754.03e711a3@canb.auug.org.au> <54C70D52.6030208@kernel.dk> <20150127045422.GY29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20150128171102.GC17528@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:49023 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755661AbbA2FP7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:15:59 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150128171102.GC17528@lst.de> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ming Lei On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:11:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Done. The first two are in #iov_iter now (merged into #for-next), the rest is dropped. And #iov_iter is in never-rebased mode, so feel free to pull it wherever you need it.