Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <28368.1568875207@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
References: <28368.1568875207@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <CAHk-=wgJx0FKq5FUP85Os1HjTPds4B3aQwumnRJDp+XHEbVjfA@mail.gmail.com> <16147.1568632167@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL afs: Development for 5.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16256.1568886562.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:49:22 +0100
Message-ID: <16257.1568886562@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> > However, I was close to unpulling it again. It has a merge commit with
> > this merge message:
> > 
> >     Merge remote-tracking branch 'net/master' into afs-next
> > 
> > and that simply is not acceptable.
> 
> Apologies - I meant to rebase that away.  There was a bug fix to rxrpc in
> net/master that didn't get pulled into your tree until Saturday.

Actually, waiting for all outstanding fixes to get merged and then rebasing
might not be the right thing here.  The problem is that there are fixes in
both trees: afs fixes go directly into yours whereas rxrpc fixes go via
networking and I would prefer to base my patches on both of them for testing
purposes.  What's the preferred method for dealing with that?  Base on a merge
of the lastest of those fixes in each tree?

David