From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 update Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:53:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20071025165358.c408314d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20071025163113.491a4461.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:55106 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754818AbXJYXyB (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:54:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > There shouldn't have been conflicts here - if there were I wouldn't have > > sent those patches. Unless there were things in the ext4 pull which > > weren't present in the ext4 quilt tree which I included in 2.6.23-mm1? > > Well, you merge your patch-series by patching. > > You should have noticed by now that GNU patch in particular will happily > apply a patch whether it conflicts or not. So it's entirely possible that > it didn't conflict for you, but applied cleanly and sanely. > hrm, could be. It would be strange for that to happen quietly with fuzz=1 and to still produce a compileable result. But there weren't any patches in this git-merge which weren't in 2.6.23-mm1 so maybe something like that happened. Or maybe that fact that this pull only contained _some_ of the ext4 patches which were in -mm somehow affected things. Oh well, I should have sent the ext4 changes via Ted anyway.