From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935369AbeE2OXD (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 10:23:03 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:53746 "EHLO mail-it0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935293AbeE2OWq (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 10:22:46 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIk62UW9AzEx7uBinx4KrcjblOz5xLA1TsVcsWDolJtYc3i7Ebpxza6Mpo6KdlN3cnXfXLSpg== Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the vfs tree To: Christoph Hellwig , Stephen Rothwell Cc: Al Viro , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Joe Perches References: <20180529143357.2a66b0af@canb.auug.org.au> <20180529081205.GB1416@lst.de> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <83024e98-8719-7ed2-a5d5-e1653162bacc@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 08:22:43 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180529081205.GB1416@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/29/18 2:12 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Meh. Do we really need these switch to octal patches to start > with? I mean, I personally prefer octal, but just switching around > in random code that isn't otherwise changed creates nothing but churn. This is exactly why I hesitated doing it, I knew it would end up with conflicts. The main reason was to get rid of the inconsistency, since we had a fair mix of octal and symbolic names. -- Jens Axboe