On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:08:34 +0100 David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Your CONFIG_BLOCK patches did a decent job of trashing your > > fs-cache-make-kafs-* patches, btw. What's up with that? OK, it's sensible > > for people to work against mainline but the net effect of doing that is to > > create a mess for other people to clean up. > > It seems the only problem in my patches is that the file address space > operations have had the sync_pages op removed in a patch in the > disable-block-layer patchset as it's no longer necessary. > > However, as I suspect you're applying the block patches *before* the FS-Cache > patches, Yes, I stage the subsystem trees ahead of everything else. So a) things which get merged into a subsystem tree effectively do a queue-jump and b) I spend much of the merge window twiddling thumbs until the git trees have merged. > I can't give you an incremental patch that you can apply after the > other fs-cache-make-kafs-* patches, since you need to modify the first patch > (fs-cache-make-kafs-use-fs-cache.patch) to get it to apply at all now. > > So, I could issue a revised AFS+FS-Cache patch, would that do? Or would you > rather have a patch that you can apply to the one you already have directly > and modify it in place? I fixed it all up, I think. Please review-and-test rc5-mm1 (including hot-fixes/ contents, which grows apace). nfs automounter submounts are still broken in Trond's tree, btw. Are we stuck? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
