From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9B97F47 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:26:09 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3F3304053 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:26:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 9Z1QYFdZRsphFten for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:26:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:25:14 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/20] xfs: implement pNFS export operations Message-ID: <20150215232514.GZ4251@dastard> References: <20150205135756.GA6386@lst.de> <20150206222047.GM12722@dastard> <20150206224258.GJ29783@fieldses.org> <20150208133435.GA27081@lst.de> <20150208090942.51e99687@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20150209201154.GA27746@fieldses.org> <20150210000423.GY12722@dastard> <20150213011130.GA6808@fieldses.org> <20150213015422.GE12722@dastard> <20150213133811.5c3b9f49@canb.auug.org.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150213133811.5c3b9f49@canb.auug.org.au> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, "J. Bruce Fields" , Jeff Layton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Jeff Layton On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 01:38:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:54:22 +1100 Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > Thanks Bruce. I might have to build a merged tree because one of the > > changes from the review modified a header file introduced in the NFS > > tree. > > > > I'll see how it goes, and see if I can avoid doing something that > > will make Linus yell at me :P > > If its a syntactic conflict with an obvious resolution, just leave it > (or maybe mention it in the pull request). It gives him something to > do so he feels useful. :-) Heh. It's not actually a conflict, though. The issue is that some of the review comments on the XFS side resulted in changes files introduced from the NFS tree. So the XFS side can't be merged without the NFS changes being present.... > /me notes that I did not see a conflict while merging the xfs tree in > linux-next today ... Because I haven't pushed them yet ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs