On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:49:04AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > Hey Kent, > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > I've (finally!) got a bcache branch hacked up that ought to be suitable > > to go upstream, possibly in staging initially. > > > > It's currently closer to the dev branch than the stable branch, plus > > some additional minor changes to make it all more self contained. The > > code has seen a decent amount of testing and I think it's in good shape, > > but I'd like it if it could see a bit more testing before I see about > > pushing it upstream. > > > > If anyone wants to try it out, checkout the bcache-for-staging branch. > > It's against Linux 3.7. > > > I pulled your 'bcache-for-staging' code into a 'dm-devel-cache-bcache' > branch on my github: > https://github.com/snitm/linux > > Purpose is to have a single kernel to compare dm-cache and bcache. My > branch is against 3.8-rc2. While importing your code I needed the > following change to get bcache to compile: > https://github.com/snitm/linux/commit/400b1257e93975864fd6c4b827537a0234551253 > > It now builds without issue but I haven't tested the resulting bcache to > know if I broke the sysfs interface due to s/cache/bcache/ on some local > variables, I don't think I did but I'll defer to you. (BTW those crafty > sysfs macros you have were pretty opaque; not really seeing what they buy > in the grand scheme. And #include "sysfs.c" is different than any code > I've seen in the kernel). Yeah, it was an ugly hack when I pulled the sysfs code out of super.c so I could avoid adding a bunch of non static symbols. But apparantly the various functions weren't even static in the first place, heh. I'll fix this the right way, thanks. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
