Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-191606-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 21:18:56 -0400
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, 
	Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Matthew Mirvish <matthew@mm12.xyz>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the refactor-heap tree with the
 block tree
Message-ID: <xwodecpshjpwgcrrssbmd6zbk6g3ah343t4zjlqdbnpcnc3vkq@k7anzy5e4ek6>
References: <20240509152745.08af752f@canb.auug.org.au>
 <20240528110737.730a8f40@canb.auug.org.au>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240528110737.730a8f40@canb.auug.org.au>

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 11:07:37AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Thu, 9 May 2024 15:27:45 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the refactor-heap tree got conflicts in:
> > 
> >   drivers/md/bcache/bset.c
> >   drivers/md/bcache/bset.h
> >   drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
> >   drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   3a861560ccb3 ("bcache: fix variable length array abuse in btree_iter")
> > 
> > from the block tree and commit:
> > 
> >   afa5721abaaa ("bcache: Remove heap-related macros and switch to generic min_heap")
> > 
> > from the refactor-heap tree.
> > 
> > Ok, these conflicts are too extensive, so I am dropping the refactor-heap
> > tree for today.  I suggest you all get together and sort something out.
> 
> It looks as though the patches from the refactor-heap tree are now being
> carried in the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree.  Should I
> rmeove the refactor-heap tree from linux-next?  It *will* be dropped for
> today at least.

Yeah, Andrew's got it