From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates for 2.6.35
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:02:18 -0400
Message-ID: <20100611200218.GE3018@think>
References: <20100611193731.GA3018@think>
 <AANLkTim6K6x3trUJLSUpoqsCWEpWuhxyN1zVRDUXH3BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100611194812.GD3018@think>
 <AANLkTilRCWlM5ZklGOb26Xj9XAmBdY1S702WyQGuaK_l@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilRCWlM5ZklGOb26Xj9XAmBdY1S702WyQGuaK_l@mail.gmail.com>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:00:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > The others all fix oopsen or big problems, and I think fixing warnings
> > helps avoid false negatives as others look for real problems?
> >
> > I'm happy to rebase out the 3 non-criticals.
> 
> There seems to be more than three non-criticals. There's the warning
> fixes, the "unused variables" thing, the "memdup_user()" thing, a
> couple of unnecessary NULL checks removed etc. On the whole, I do not
> get the feeling that the pull request was actively trying to be
> minimal, and that's what I really want to see.

No problem, I like to err on the side of pulling in safe fixes from the
automated checkers so they don't have to go through results again.

But, I've got a completely minimal rebase now and I'm double checking
it.

-chris