On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:02:33AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530 > > > > Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530 > > > > > > Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read > > > > > > > and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately the unplugging changes in Jen's block tree have trashed these > > > > > > patches to a degree that I'm not confident in my repair attempts. So I'll > > > > > > drop the fasio patches from -mm. > > > > > > > > > > I took a quick look and the conflicts seem pretty minor to me, the unplugging > > > > > changes mostly touch nearby code. > > > > > > > > Well... the conflicts (both mechanical and conceptual) are such that a > > > > round of retesting is needed. > > > > > > > > > Please let know how you want this fixed up. > > > > > > > > > > >From what I can tell the comments in the unplug patches seem to say that > > > > > it needs more work and testing, so perhaps a separate fixup patch may be > > > > > a better idea rather than make the fsaio patchset dependent on this. > > > > > > > > Patches against next -mm would be appreciated, please. Sorry about that. > > > > > > > > I _assume_ Jens is targetting 2.6.21? > > > > > > When is the next -mm likely to be out ? > > > > > > I was considering regenerating the blk unplug patches against the > > > fsaio changes instead of the other way around, if Jens were willing to > > > accept that. But if the next -mm is just around the corner then its > > > not an issue. > > > > I don't really care much, but I work against mainline and anything but > > occasional one-off generations of a patch against a different base is > > not very likely. > > > > The -mm order should just reflect the merge order of the patches, what > > is the fsaio target? > > 2.6.21 was what I had in mind, to enable the glibc folks to proceed with > conversion to native AIO. > > Regenerating my patches against the unplug stuff is not a problem, I only > worry about being queued up behind something that may take longer to > stabilize and is likely to change ... If that is not the case, I don't > mind. Same here, hence the suggestion to base then in merging order. If your target is 2.6.21, then I think fsaio should be first. While I think the plug changes are safe and as such mergable, we still need to see lots of results and do more testing. -- Jens Axboe - 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
