Messages in this thread | | | From | Miklos Szeredi <> | Date | Wed, 18 Jul 2018 09:25:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: vfs / overlayfs conflict resolution for linux-next |
| |
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:29 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 03:56:37 +0100 Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> >> ... and now it even builds. Said that, I would really like to hear something >> from you - I can duplicate the entire overlayfs-next and merge it into >> my #for-next and ask Steven to use that instead of your tree, but I very >> much dislike going over your head like that. >> >> I realize that you'd been away for a while and probably are digging yourself >> from under the piles of mail, but it's getting late in the cycle and I want >> to get #for-next into reasonably sane shape. Please, look through that >> thing and respond. > > Almost everything has been removed from the overlayfs tree in > linux-next today. The only commit there currently is: > > 67810693077a ovl: fix wrong use of impure dir cache in ovl_iterate()
Al, thank you very much for taking care of this. I've already begone to go through those and will finish up the merge, hopefully today.
Thanks, Miklos
| |