Hi Josh, Zach, and team, I went ahead and took the comment out, as can be seen in patch 3/3. I had left it there because my understanding is that this is just a proposal, and if the team likes the idea, btrfs_find_item() will be further developed so that it replace more existing functions and not as yet existing ones. I can imagine, though, that if it's not taken out it could end up floating around in the tree for no good reason. Is that correct?
Also, I fixed a rebase conflict before preparing this set, so a) I hope I did it correctly, and b) assuming I did, I feel confident to handle them in the future. They look exactly like merge conflicts. I discarded the lines from HEAD (the lines on top) and kept what was in the patch (on the bottom). Thanks, Kelley (kelleynnn) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
