From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ubifs tree Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:15:53 +0300 Message-ID: <48884849.8050102@nokia.com> References: <20080724152205.1bb53acb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Reply-To: Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.233]:43619 "EHLO mgw-mx06.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750977AbYGXJTs (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:19:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080724152205.1bb53acb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org Stephen, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the ubifs tree got conflicts in > Documentation/filesystems/ubifs.txt, fs/ubifs/budget.c, > fs/ubifs/commit.c, fs/ubifs/debug.c, fs/ubifs/dir.c, fs/ubifs/file.c, > fs/ubifs/io.c, fs/ubifs/journal.c, fs/ubifs/log.c, fs/ubifs/misc.h, > fs/ubifs/orphan.c, fs/ubifs/super.c and fs/ubifs/ubifs.h against Linu= s' > tree. >=20 > This has happened because of a partial merge of this tree into Linus' > tree. I just took the ubifs tree's version of all those files. I've re-based both UBI and UBIFS trees against todays Linus' tree, i.e. commit 338b9bb3adac0d2c5a1e180491d9b001d624c402 I compile-tested that - looks fine. Internally I still keep working with 2.6.26 release for several reasons, but UBI/UBIFS are so isolated that I thing the re-based stuff is fine. At lease this has always be the case in the past. Thanks. Hopefully this time -next merge will go smoothly. --=20 Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=90=D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC =D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E= =D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9)