From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754097AbaHNAoO (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:44:14 -0400 Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:23857 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752149AbaHNAoM (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:44:12 -0400 Message-ID: <53EC0655.8030600@fb.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:44:05 -0400 From: Chris Mason User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Rothwell , Josef Bacik CC: , Subject: Re: linux-next: new stuff in the btrfs tree References: <20140814100750.5c6368f1@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: <20140814100750.5c6368f1@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.16.4] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.12.52,1.0.27,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-08-13_06:2014-08-13,2014-08-13,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=fb_default_notspam policy=fb_default score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=1.16573417585641e-15 kscore.compositescore=0 circleOfTrustscore=51.6554285532058 compositescore=0.998981209195878 urlsuspect_oldscore=0.998981209195878 suspectscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=64355 rbsscore=0.998981209195878 spamscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=3 urlsuspectscore=0.9 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1408140006 X-FB-Internal: deliver Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/13/2014 08:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Are all the commits just added to the btrfs tree really intended for > v3.17? If not then please remove them until after v3.17-rc1 is > released. If so, then they are very late :-( > > I suspect the latter because some of them seem to date from June (and a > few even from February). > Hi Stephen, Yes, these are for 3.17-rc1. My push to my -next tree was late due to vacations and because we've been hunting a deadlock in our workqueue code, but I've had these in testing for some time. -chris