On 5/29/18 3:40 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2018 08:22:43 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> On 5/29/18 2:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> Meh. Do we really need these switch to octal patches to start
>>> with? I mean, I personally prefer octal, but just switching ar
Hi Jens,
On Tue, 29 May 2018 08:22:43 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> On 5/29/18 2:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Meh. Do we really need these switch to octal patches to start
> > with? I mean, I personally prefer octal, but just switching around
> > in random code that isn't otherwise changed
On 5/29/18 2:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Meh. Do we really need these switch to octal patches to start
> with? I mean, I personally prefer octal, but just switching around
> in random code that isn't otherwise changed creates nothing but churn.
This is exactly why I hesitated doing it, I k
Meh. Do we really need these switch to octal patches to start
with? I mean, I personally prefer octal, but just switching around
in random code that isn't otherwise changed creates nothing but churn.
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:33:57PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-n
Hi all,
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:44:07 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> drivers/block/nbd.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c9f2b6aeb922 ("[nbd] pass iov_iter to nbd_xmit()")
>
> from the vfs tree and commit:
>
> 09fc54ccc427 ("n
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/logfs/dev_bdev.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 6b4fbde3b979 ("logfs: remove from tree")
>
> from the vfs tree and commitis:
>
> 3a83f4677539 ("block: bio: pa
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:31:40PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Al: that vfs tree commit has a bad email address for Christoph in it :-(
Gyah... OK, will fix (the bulk of the diff, of course, had been regenerated
while commit message came from his old mail; unfortunately, it had been long
go
On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 05:56:19AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> FWIW, there's an interesting question about the second commit in there -
> what do we want vfs_iter_{read,write}() to do with *iter in case if it
> has hit this:
> if (ret == -EIOCBQUEUED)
> ret = wait_on_sync_kiocb(
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:15:55AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:11:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:54:22AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > > I don't mind opening a never-rebased branch for generic iov_iter-related
> > > stuff;
> > > if you prefer
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:11:02PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:54:22AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > I don't mind opening a never-rebased branch for generic iov_iter-related
> > stuff;
> > if you prefer to handle it that way - just tell. The first two patches
> > from
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:54:22AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> I don't mind opening a never-rebased branch for generic iov_iter-related
> stuff;
> if you prefer to handle it that way - just tell. The first two patches
> from that series would definitely go there; as for the rest... no preferences
> h
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 09:00:18PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/26/2015 08:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >Hi Jens,
> >
> >Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
> >drivers/block/loop.c between commit c2ca80413553 ("loop: convert to
> >vfs_iter_read/write") from the vfs
On 01/26/2015 08:57 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Jens,
Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in
drivers/block/loop.c between commit c2ca80413553 ("loop: convert to
vfs_iter_read/write") from the vfs tree and commit b5dd2f6047ca
("block: loop: improve performance via blk-mq"
13 matches
Mail list logo
