On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 06:17:55PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > Spinning it as a pure bugfix is a reach (as Eric's header documents the > patch, the case is weak for cc'ing stable). Reality is the change is > needed to enable a new bcache feature. I'm not going to rush > feature-enabling change that arrived in the last minute. I do agree that it can wait for 4.11 and isn't a candidate for stable, I should've said that earlier. > > > and you can't fault Eric for not > > wanting to do work on dm-cache too when all he's trying to do is solve a > > particular real world problem. He should be able to do that without having to > > dive into dm-cache code too. > > > > Furthermore, pretty much every filesystem has private ioctls and interfaces - > > this is no different. > > You're completely misreading my having raised dm-cache. I was poinitng > out that Eric's patch to enable a new bcache feature ontop of dm-crypt > was too late. Had Eric known of this limitation sooner or thought to > engage me or the rest of dm-devel then DM could've been fixed with > precision during the 4.10 development window. > > I wasn't saying Eric should've worked on dm-cache. But had he raised > this bcache feature to my attention, in the context of missing ioprio > and why dm-cache would/could use it in the future too, then it'd have > been all the better. Simple as that. I was trying to be helpful. Not > trying to be a PITA in any way. I took your email to mean that the original patches shouldn't have gone in without involving dm-cache. If that wasn't what you meant, let's just chalk this up to a miscommunication. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
