; 3) It could go in via someone else's tree entirely (Andrew or Al's
> maybe?)
>
> I'm fine with any of these. Anyone have thoughts?
Given that this is a one off development, either 1 or 3 (in Al's tree)
would be fine. 2 is a possibility (but people forget to ask me to
rem
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next
>
> I've got the sample resolution in next-merge:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git next-merge
>
> Please let us know if you have any problems.
A bit of a mess, b
xt-merge
Thanks for that. It seems to have merged OK but maybe it conflicts
with something later in linux-next. Unfortunately see my other email
about a build problem. I will keep this example merge in mind for
later.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
--
To u
ave
been:
* submitted under GPL v2 (or later) and include the Contributor's
Signed-off-by,
* posted to the relevant mailing list,
* reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
* successfully unit tested, and
* destined for the current
/btrfs/sysfs.c:153:13: warning: 'btrfs_super_release' defined but not used
fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160:13: warning: 'btrfs_root_release' defined but not used
I have started using gcc v4.5.2 (instead of v4.4.4) if that makes a
difference.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:06:04 -0800 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd prefer that it go into linux-next in the usual fashion. But the
> first step is review..
OK, I wasn't sure where it was up to (not being a file system person).
--
x-next, yet? Or
is this more -mm material?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpXCczZEg3KS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
