From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752432Ab1COWSV (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:18:21 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:35537 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750863Ab1COWST (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:18:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:18:18 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [git pull] VFS - the first pile Message-ID: <20110315221818.GN22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20110315213248.GL22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110315213248.GL22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 09:32:48PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > Shortlog: > Al Viro (45): > compat breakage in preadv() and pwritev() BTW, a question about rebases: is that kind of situation worth doing a rebase of the queue/backmerge/etc.? This commit sits in the base of that branch, with branchpoint at Mar 10; the same thing had been applied in mainline at Mar 13. git merge does, of course, handle it just fine; I guess I should've posted a pull request back then instead of posting the patch - to be honest, I hadn't thought about that. What's the prefered way of dealing with such situations? Leave as is? Rebase at the point where the patch went into mainline? Something else?