Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 20:04:54 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Seth Forshee <sforshee@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the
 vfs-idmapping tree
Message-ID: <20230511-fragil-lohnt-618b71af4669@brauner>
References: <20230510105543.165f102b@canb.auug.org.au>
 <b5c0b1b9-9896-2637-458b-ca1003ba7d74@kernel.dk>
 <20230511110750.76a33556@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230511110750.76a33556@canb.auug.org.au>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:07:50AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 06:48:39 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, since Linus didn't like the original approach, it was redone
> > and that particular patch was originally forgotten and then redone
> > without the 'nonblock' variable. So you should just ignore the
> > old version, and Christian should just drop that branch from his
> > for-next tree as it's dead.
> 
> That appears to have been done now, thanks.

Yeah, sorry. LSFMM makes it a bit hard to be consistent about my
replies and after my first reply I only had rolled vfs/for-next rolled
forward but not vfs-idmapping/for-next. The latter repo will likely go
away soonish and then only vfs/* will be left.

Christian