Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 01:31:52PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 06:39:04PM +0200, Mark Ryden wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> So I wonder: the sysfs tagged directory support patch is in GerKH >> >> tree for more than a month. >> > >> > I dropped it from my tree 2 days ago, see the thread on lkml for why. >> >> Greg why did you drop it? > > Because Al said it was full of problems and for us not to accept it. Yes. Al found problems. Al reviewed sysfs with my patchset on top of it. Al's review found problems in sysfs with my patchset on top of it. If you look at what Al found the majority of those problems exist in sysfs without my patches. Does the following sound like a workable path going forward? - Not merge for 2.6.28 (we are to close to the merge window for everyone's comfort). - Fix the small issues specific to tagged directory support that showed up in Al's review (patches sent). - Keep the patches the entire time in a public tree that merges into linux-next so that people treat this code base seriously. - Resolve the sysfs/vfs lock ordering problem mess that makes locking in sysfs excruciatingly difficult. - Merge other patches to fix Als other issues with sysfs. - Merge to 2.6.29 or wherever we are. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
