On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 15:33 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >>> Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> When, if, all is fixed, through which tree/maintainer can exofs be submitted? > > > > I can merge them. Or you can run a git tree of your own, add it to > > linux-next and ask Linus to pull it at the appropriate time. > > > > Hi James > > Andrew suggested that maybe I should push exofs file system directly to > Linus as it is pretty orthogonal to any other work. Sitting in linux-next > will quickly expose any advancements in VFS and will force me to keep > the tree uptodate. > > If that is so, and is accepted by Linus, would you rather that also the > open-osd initiator library will be submitted through the same tree? > The conflicts with scsi are very very narrow. The only real dependency > is the ULD being a SCSI ULD. I will routinely ask your ACK on any scsi > or ULD related patches. Which are very few. This way it will be easier > to manage the dependencies between the OSD work, the OSD pNFS-Objects > trees at pNFS project, and the pNFSD+EXOFS export. One less dependency. > > [I already have such a public tree at git.open-osd.org for a while now] Since it's sitting in SCSI, at least the libosd piece belongs over the SCSI mailing list, so I think it makes sense to continue updating it via the SCSI tree. What's the status of the major number request from LANANA. That's patch number one, and I haven't heard that they've confirmed the selection of 260 yet; or is LANANA now dead and it's who gets the major into the tree first? James -- 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
