Message ID | YIdByy4WJcXTN7Wy@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [git,pull] fileattr series from Miklos | expand |
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 3:42 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote: > > The branch is straight from Miklos' tree (it's #fileattr_v6 there), > sat merged into vfs.git #for-next for a while. Not sure what's the normal > way to do pull requests in situations like that - do you prefer a reference > to my tree (as below) or to mszeredi/vfs.git? This is fine. The only downside here is that there was no signed tag, which I would have preferred - either from you or from Milkos. We've had this a couple of times before, and I've started trying to "document" it with a "Pull X from Y via Z" thing. See for example git show 836d7f0572ca 70cd33d34c60 which is a similar kind of thing where Borislav just forwarded Ard's work (and it has happened in the past a couple of times without those kinds of notices). Btw, unrelated to that, this pull request got a conflict with 64708539cd23 ("btrfs: use btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock inode lock helpers") which I think I sorted out correctly (the "inode_lock()" is now done by the VFS layer for the fileattr things, and the btrfs use of "btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock" ended up being undone). But just to be safe I'm cc'ing the btrfs people involved. Please double-check that I didn't screw something up. (Note: it doesn't show up as a conflict in the merge itself, because each piece was a straight "take the case from one side or the other", and in this case "take it from the fileattr" side meant that the inode_[un]lock -> btrfs_inode_[un]lock conversion for the fileattr cases just went away). Linus
The pull request you sent on Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:42:19 +0000:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git miklos.fileattr
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/a4f7fae10169cf626bb83e97f229ee78c71ceea8
Thank you!
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:31:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Btw, unrelated to that, this pull request got a conflict with > > 64708539cd23 ("btrfs: use btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock inode > lock helpers") > > which I think I sorted out correctly (the "inode_lock()" is now done > by the VFS layer for the fileattr things, and the btrfs use of > "btrfs_inode_lock/btrfs_inode_unlock" ended up being undone). But just > to be safe I'm cc'ing the btrfs people involved. Please double-check > that I didn't screw something up. Checked, it's ok. Thanks.