Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Now, the conflicts really do look entirely trivial, and that's not the
> problem, but the fact that you *didn't* re-send the AFS pull request
> makes me wonder if you perhaps didn't want me to pull it after all?
Al's pulled it into his tree. I'm hoping he's going to send
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Now, the conflicts really do look entirely trivial, and that's not the
> problem, but the fact that you *didn't* re-send the AFS pull request
> makes me wonder if you perhaps didn't want me to pull it after all?
Sorry: Al pointed out that I was incorrectly using lookup_on
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> That, of course, can be dealt with after merge, but since that commit
> has to be at least rebased to avoid bisection hazard... might as well
> get rid of dget_parent() there at the same time.
Ok, I will skip the afs updates for now, but am open
On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 09:50:05AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:29 PM, David Howells wrote:
> >>
> > Here are a set of AFS patches, a few fixes, but mostly development. The
> > fixes
> > are:
>
> So I pulled this after your updated fscache pull request, and I notice
>
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:29 PM, David Howells wrote:
>>
> Here are a set of AFS patches, a few fixes, but mostly development. The fixes
> are:
So I pulled this after your updated fscache pull request, and I notice
that these three commits are duplicate (not shared):
fscache: Attach the in
Hi Linus,
Here are a set of AFS patches, a few fixes, but mostly development. The fixes
are:
(1) Fix a bunch of checker warnings.
(2) Fix overincrement of the usage count on pinned cells.
(3) Fix directory handling. We cannot assume that a directory blob isn't
completely rewritten be
6 matches
Mail list logo
