On Mon, 7 Mar 2005, Steven French wrote:

> Not trying to ignore the whitespace patch, but I expect it to require
> hand merging against current code due to the changes in the cifs bk tree
> (and therefore the version in mm) which hit overlapping places in a few
> of the same files. Quite a bit of minor changes had gone into the cifs
> tree to eliminate sparse warnings (the last update of sparse flags
> static functions differently) - and 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 are a little
> harder to patch against. This will be a lot easier when I push the next
> set of changes to mainline.
>

Ok, so should I just send you patches against -mm then? or wait with these
things until your next merge with mainline? or? It's not like these bits
are that important, they can easily wait. Just tell me what will make your
life easiest and I'll try to do that.

--
Jesper