Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754111Ab0FKUAM (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:00:12 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:50958 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754145Ab0FKUAK (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:00:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100611194812.GD3018@think> References: <20100611193731.GA3018@think> <20100611194812.GD3018@think> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:00:02 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 2.6.35 From: Linus Torvalds To: Chris Mason , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 853 Lines: 19 On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > > The others all fix oopsen or big problems, and I think fixing warnings > helps avoid false negatives as others look for real problems? > > I'm happy to rebase out the 3 non-criticals. There seems to be more than three non-criticals. There's the warning fixes, the "unused variables" thing, the "memdup_user()" thing, a couple of unnecessary NULL checks removed etc. On the whole, I do not get the feeling that the pull request was actively trying to be minimal, and that's what I really want to see. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/