From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35 v4] separate operations from flags in the
 bio/request structs
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 09:13:39 -0800
Message-ID: <20160229171339.GA17755@infradead.org>
References: <1456343292-14535-1-git-send-email-mchristi@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	konrad.wilk@oracle.com, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com,
	philipp.reisner@linbit.com, lars.ellenberg@linbit.com,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	osd-dev@open-osd.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
To: mchristi@redhat.com
Return-path: <linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1456343292-14535-1-git-send-email-mchristi@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-bcache-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org

Any reason you've dropped my ACK for the previous version?

Jens, is this something you're fine with?  Would be great to figure
out a way to get this into 4.6.  There's probably going to be
plenty of conflicts, so having some sort of stable base tree
would be nice..

(Talking about conflicts, seems like the block for-linus and for-next
trees already conflict quite a bit..)