From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8945F7F37 for ; Sat, 30 May 2015 07:06:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D16AC001 for ; Sat, 30 May 2015 05:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VzPTOm8RrcXo0HC2 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 30 May 2015 05:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 08:06:16 -0400 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] xfs: for-next branch updated to cddc116 Message-ID: <20150530120616.GA27739@bfoster.bfoster> References: <20150528215309.GA15721@dastard> <20150528222109.GC4316@dastard> <20150529120549.GA36053@bfoster.bfoster> <20150529223105.GC24666@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150529223105.GC24666@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 08:31:05AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:05:49AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:21:09AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:53:09AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > The for-next branch of the xfs kernel repository at > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git > > > > > > > > has just been updated. > > > > > > > > The new head of the for-next branch is commit: > > > > > > > > cddc116 xfs: xfs_iozero can return positive errno > > > > > > Note: i just updated it again with a patch I missed in the > > > xfs-for-linus-v4.1-rc6 branch: > > > > > > Brian Foster (1): > > > [22419ac] xfs: fix broken i_nlink accounting for whiteout tmpfile inode > > > > > > > Any word on the following two as well? > > > > http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2015-April/041504.html > > http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2015-May/041582.html > > I've got them queued up for the 4.2 cycle (haven't pushed the branch > yet) because I didn't think they were really critical. > Sounds good, just making sure they weren't lost. Thanks! Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs