From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sgi.com (netops-testserver-3.corp.sgi.com [192.26.57.72]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m9R7jupP026981 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:45:56 -0700 Message-ID: <49057146.3000101@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:44:06 +1100 From: Lachlan McIlroy Reply-To: lachlan@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: linux-next: left over things in linux-next after 2.6.28-c1 References: <20081026005009.50dbbb33.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081026081717.GB20872@infradead.org> <20081026193421.f5f7d8f1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081026083939.GA19394@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20081026083939.GA19394@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Andrew Morton , xfs@oss.sgi.com Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 07:34:21PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Presumably what was merged was slightly different (or the commits were >> split up differently). This is the same problem I have with the kvm tree. > > It should be the same, but the xfs trees have been a bit of a maze > recently, so it shouldn't be a surprise that your list got out of sync. > The XFS tree used for linux-next got a bit out of whack and I couldn't make sense of the mess so I've been using a different tree for the mainline pull requests. We'll have this mess sorted out soon.