| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Why not move xfs infra-structure to "public" services |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 1 Oct 2014 06:42:41 +1000 |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20140930201245.GA3806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20140930141857.GA2053@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140930200046.GQ4758@dastard> <20140930201245.GA3806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 05:12:45PM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > Thanks dave. > > Can I use your kernel.org tree from now then? Sure - it's already the tree that is included into the linux-next builds and the tree I ask linus to pull from... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Why not move xfs infra-structure to "public" services, Carlos Maiolino |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: only set extent size hint when asked, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Why not move xfs infra-structure to "public" services, Carlos Maiolino |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] xfs: fix check for maximum allowable extent record file offset, Brian Foster |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |