Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi Stephen, On 2019/5/8 11:44, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Wed, 1 May 2019 17:05:28 +1000 Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got conflicts in: >> >> drivers/staging/erofs/data.c >> drivers/staging/erofs/unzip_vle.c >> >> between

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi all, On Wed, 1 May 2019 17:05:28 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got conflicts in: > > drivers/staging/erofs/data.c > drivers/staging/erofs/unzip_vle.c > > between commit: > > 2b070cfe582b ("block: remove the i argument to

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi, On 2019/5/1 ??3:05, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got conflicts in: drivers/staging/erofs/data.c drivers/staging/erofs/unzip_vle.c between commit: 2b070cfe582b ("block: remove the i argument to bio_for_each_segment_all") from

linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got conflicts in: drivers/staging/erofs/data.c drivers/staging/erofs/unzip_vle.c between commit: 2b070cfe582b ("block: remove the i argument to bio_for_each_segment_all") from the block tree and commit: 14a56ec65bab ("staging:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi all, On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:07:37 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c > > between commit: > > 95fe6c1a209e ("block, fs, mm, drivers: use bio set/get op

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi all, On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:07:37 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in: > > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c > > between commit: > > 95fe6c1a209e ("block, fs, mm, drivers: use bio set/get op accessors") > > from

linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi Greg, Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in: drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c between commit: 95fe6c1a209e ("block, fs, mm, drivers: use bio set/get op accessors") from the block tree and commit: 67b1a24e883c ("staging: lustre: llite: remove lloop

linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi Greg, Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in: drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c between commit: 95fe6c1a209e ("block, fs, mm, drivers: use bio set/get op accessors") from the block tree and commit: 67b1a24e883c ("staging: lustre: llite: remove lloop

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:49:26AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:20:10PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > > > is required). > > > > Looks good to me, thanks. > > The lloop driver should simply be

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:20:10PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action > > is required). > > Looks good to me, thanks. The lloop driver should simply be dropped. It's a duplication of loop which had some lustre-specific hacks that

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:20:10PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). Looks good to me, thanks. The lloop driver should simply be dropped. It's a duplication of loop which had some lustre-specific hacks that are

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:49:26AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:20:10PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required). Looks good to me, thanks. The lloop driver should simply be dropped.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:09:24PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c between commit ed2d2f9a8265 > ("block: Abstract out bvec iterator") from the block tree and commit >

linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi Greg, Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c between commit ed2d2f9a8265 ("block: Abstract out bvec iterator") from the block tree and commit de40d1209898 ("staging: lustre: fix bug with LL_MRF_RETURN in loop_make_request")

linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

Hi Greg, Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c between commit ed2d2f9a8265 (block: Abstract out bvec iterator) from the block tree and commit de40d1209898 (staging: lustre: fix bug with LL_MRF_RETURN in loop_make_request) from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the block tree

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:09:24PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi Greg, Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/lloop.c between commit ed2d2f9a8265 (block: Abstract out bvec iterator) from the block tree and commit de40d1209898