Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-182976-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240518044601.GA478319@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20240518044601.GA478319@mit.edu>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 14:19:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgPpNkBikDhCVOciA_bs9SkHH7XakdT0DbknFyiR_4HTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 updates for v6.10-rc1
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 21:46, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Note that there is a relatively merge conflict; the relatively simple
> resolution which I used when running regression tests is at the tag
> ext4_merge_resolution in the ext4 git repo,

Heh. That tag just points to the same commit you asked me to pull. I
think you may have tagged it before you actually committed your merge
resolution.

That said, the merge resolution looks trivial, so no big deal. When
people send me a suggested merge, I usually compare against it just
because it's cheap insurance, not because it's usually necessary.

But you may want to check that I actually did the same thing you did.

             Linus