Sorry, I do not know. I thought we should always add RFC all though the patch's life... What is the prefix i should add? PATH 0 ? 2017-02-24 19:42 GMT+08:00 Jeff Cody <jcody@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:09:31PM +0800, Jaze Lee wrote: >> 2017-02-24 11:52 GMT+08:00 Jeff Cody <jcody@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:50:03PM +0800, jazeltq@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> From: tianqing <tianqing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> Rbd can do readv and writev directly, so wo do not need to transform >> >> iov to buf or vice versa any more. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: tianqing <tianqing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> > >> > >> > This is marked as an RFC still - is this a series you would like to see in >> > 2.9? >> >> Yes. What should i do if i like it in 2.9 >> > > Ideally you would submit the series as a non-RFC patch (that is, it would > have progressed to a normal patch away from RFC). > > But in this case, it seems to me that this patch has progressed beyond RFC; > is there any reason it is still marked as RFC instead of just a patch? It > looks OK to me. > -- 谦谦君子 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
