On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Sage Weil wrote: > Hi David! > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, David Howells wrote: > > Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > David, are the fscache patches here ready for the next merge window? Do > > > you have a preference for whose tree they go through? > > > > There's only one problem - patch 1 needs to come _after_ patch 2 to avoid > > breaking git bisect. Plus these patches 2 and 4 extend the fscache API > > without adjusting the documentation - but that can be added later. > > > > And I think Milosz deserves a beer (or other poison of his choice;-) for > > finding a longstanding irritating bug. > > > > I think AFS, CIFS, NFS and 9P all need patching too, but I can attend to that. > > > > Should I take the patches through my tree? Then I can make the adjustments. > > Sure. Do you want the Ceph patches as well, or just the fscache bits? > I'll repost the latest version, as it's gotten several fixes squashed in. The full series is here: git://github.com/ceph/ceph-client wip-fscache https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client/commits/wip-fscache Thanks! sage -- Linux-cachefs mailing list Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
