Ted,
a pile of new ext4 stuff just turned up in linux-next. This means that
I had to rework
filesystem-freeze-add-error-handling-of-write_super_lockfs-unlockfs.patch
a little bit, and that patch now has a dependency upon the newly-added
ext4 patches.
I assume those one-day-old changes are targetted at 2.6.20, so I'll
need to undo that fix when I send
filesystem-freeze-add-error-handling-of-write_super_lockfs-unlockfs.patch
(perhaps today) and this will then cause conflicts in ext4 and/pr
linux-next.
It's not a big problem in this case, but this is why we ask that new
work not be added into linux-next until 2.6.x-rc1 has been cut.
Ta.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:04:36 -0800
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> a pile of new ext4 stuff just turned up in linux-next
filesystem-freeze-add-error-handling-of-write_super_lockfs-unlockfs.patch
is dependent on things which are in linux-next's fs/ext4/super.c.
I could fix the (large) reject and proceed, but then you'd have
reject-fixing to do as well.
Do you plan on merging all those changes into mainline for 2.6.29? If
so, please do so asap?
If not, I'll just go ahead and trash your stuff :)
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 03:32:09PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:04:36 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > a pile of new ext4 stuff just turned up in linux-next
Sorry, most of the stuff had been sitting in the unstable part of the
queue, but I didn't have time to get them fully vetted and pushed into
the stable tree until the week just before and after the new year's.
They've actually been tested for a while, but I like to review all the
patches before they go in.
> Do you plan on merging all those changes into mainline for 2.6.29? If
> so, please do so asap?
Yes, and I sent the pull request to Linus earlier today. Last I
checked it hasn't hit his public tree yet, but hopefully it will by
tomorrow.
- Ted