Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

2020-10-15 Thread David Sterba
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:35:30AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Please do *not* rebase/rewrite your linux-next included tree and then > immediately send it to Linus. Or if you do, the please also update > what you have in linux-next (so you can sneak it past me :-(). > (mutter,

linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

2020-10-14 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Please do *not* rebase/rewrite your linux-next included tree and then immediately send it to Linus. Or if you do, the please also update what you have in linux-next (so you can sneak it past me :-(). (mutter, mutter, unnecessary conflicts :-(). I have dropped the brtfs tree from

linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

2014-02-02 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got conflicts in lost of files between commits from Linus' tree and commits from the btrfs tree. Not only did you rebase/rewrite your tree before asking Linus to pull it, but you added a whole lot of commits beyond what had been in linux-next! I

linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

2014-02-02 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got conflicts in lost of files between commits from Linus' tree and commits from the btrfs tree. Not only did you rebase/rewrite your tree before asking Linus to pull it, but you added a whole lot of commits beyond what had been in linux-next! I

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

2014-01-29 Thread Michal Nazarewicz
On Wed, Jan 29 2014, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in > fs/btrfs/acl.c between commit 996a710d4641 ("btrfs: use generic posix ACL > infrastructure") from the tree and commit cfad95253440 ("btrfs: remove > dead code") from the btrfs tree. > > I

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

2014-01-29 Thread Michal Nazarewicz
On Wed, Jan 29 2014, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in fs/btrfs/acl.c between commit 996a710d4641 (btrfs: use generic posix ACL infrastructure) from the tree and commit cfad95253440 (btrfs: remove dead code) from the btrfs tree. I fixed it

linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

2014-01-28 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in fs/btrfs/acl.c between commit 996a710d4641 ("btrfs: use generic posix ACL infrastructure") from the tree and commit cfad95253440 ("btrfs: remove dead code") from the btrfs tree. I fixed it up (I used the version from Linus'

linux-next: manual merge of the btrfs tree with Linus' tree

2014-01-28 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the btrfs tree got a conflict in fs/btrfs/acl.c between commit 996a710d4641 (btrfs: use generic posix ACL infrastructure) from the tree and commit cfad95253440 (btrfs: remove dead code) from the btrfs tree. I fixed it up (I used the version from Linus' tree)