From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:35:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:34:57 -0500 Received: from mail4.bigmailbox.com ([209.132.220.35]:55047 "EHLO mail4.bigmailbox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:34:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:34:26 -0800 Message-Id: <200101300234.SAA20191@mail4.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-Ip: [198.147.65.9] From: "Quim K Holland" To: neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au, torvalds@transmeta.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Desk check of raid5.c patch from mtew@cds.duke.edu? Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I've been following the recent 2.4.1-pre series and am wondering why the following one-liner (obviously correct) patch has not been applied. Maybe the original request from Neil to Linus did not get through? --- drivers/md/raid5.c 2001/01/13 04:31:15 1.1 +++ drivers/md/raid5.c 2001/01/13 04:31:30 @@ -1071,7 +1071,7 @@ bh->b_end_io(bh, 1); } while ((bh=return_fail)) { - return_ok = bh->b_reqnext; + return_fail = bh->b_reqnext; bh->b_reqnext = NULL; bh->b_end_io(bh, 0); } ------------------------------------------------------------ --== Sent via Deja.com ==-- http://www.deja.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/