From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the ubifs tree Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:42:44 +0300 Message-ID: <4A9E05D4.4050206@nokia.com> References: <20090902153657.dc174bf6.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 ([192.100.105.134]:51619 "EHLO mgw-mx09.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755776AbZIBFnu (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2009 01:43:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090902153657.dc174bf6.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jens Axboe , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On 09/02/2009 08:36 AM, ext Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in > fs/ubifs/super.c between commit 887ee17117fd23e962332b353d250ac9e090b= 20f > ("UBIFS: remove unneeded call from ubifs_sync_fs") from the ubifs tre= e > and commit 0184fca792940a9e4058b2c63b3f334326a4c7af ("writeback: move > super_block argument to struct writeback_control") from the block tre= e. > > The former removes the code that the latter changes. I just used the > version from the ubifs tree. I can carry this fixup as necessary. Yeah, I remove the call because it is not needed anymore. --=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)