From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756773Ab0ERV7U (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2010 17:59:20 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:45443 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752633Ab0ERV7S (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2010 17:59:18 -0400 To: Greg KH Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro References: <20100518164520.7e9652b1.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20100518212502.GB31331@kroah.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:59:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20100518212502.GB31331@kroah.com> (Greg KH's message of "Tue\, 18 May 2010 14\:25\:02 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.188.5.249;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.188.5.249 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: greg@kroah.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Greg KH X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral * 0.4 UNTRUSTED_Relay Comes from a non-trusted relay Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the driver-core tree X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Greg KH writes: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:58:33PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Greg this fixes the conflict with the vfs tree we see in linux-next. > > Thanks, I can apply this to my tree right now, right? Yes it is safe to apply to your tree right now. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Eric