On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 03:36:13PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:40:07AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>
> > I'm fine with that, although I think it's mainly with vfs changes
> > so could be better though with vfs tree. I will add this patch
> > tomorrow anyway... Thanks for reminde
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:40:07AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> I'm fine with that, although I think it's mainly with vfs changes
> so could be better though with vfs tree. I will add this patch
> tomorrow anyway... Thanks for reminder!
FWIW, my reasoning here is
* erofs tree exists and
Hi Al,
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:51:11AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:45:01AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/erofs/super.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > e7cda1ee94f4 ("erofs:
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:45:01AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/erofs/super.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e7cda1ee94f4 ("erofs: code cleanup by removing ifdef macro surrounding")
>
> from the erofs tree and comm
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
fs/erofs/super.c
between commit:
e7cda1ee94f4 ("erofs: code cleanup by removing ifdef macro surrounding")
from the erofs tree and commit:
91a7c5e1d30e ("erofs: convert to use the new mount fs_context api")
from the vfs
5 matches
Mail list logo