On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:20:02AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:03:07PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:28:27AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 06:27:01PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > I'm happy to help to port the top of the patch set onto changes in > > > > earlier parts of it, but I would like the chance to do this really. I'm > > > > back in action now, so I can spend a lot of time catching up. > > > > > > That's all good and fine, but it's really no reason for delaying getting > > > the most important bits in. > > > > Really? I *really* think I can be given the chance to review what's > > happened, catch up, and make sure it's foward compatible with the > > rest of my tree. > > Please go and review it, the more eyes core code gets the better. But > don't assume you have carte blanche to delay things again just for the > fun of it. Heh, I'm not, I've been the one driving most of this, so it's not a big deal. I'm not interested in trying to delay it, trust me, but I think I can be given some time to review it. It's taken much more than a couple of weeks for me to get serious reviews... > Other patches in your tree will need at least as many > changes as the inode bits did, so they will need some major work anyway. > Holding the splitup now for things that will take at least another half > a year to hit the tree is rather pointless. > > > The most important bits are, in fact, mostly my > > patches anyway unless there is a fundamentally different approach to > > take. And so either way I don't think it is ready for 2.6.37 if it > > hasn't been in vfs for testing and review by fs people -- that's what > > we agreed I thought for the inode and dcache lock splitups. > > fs and vfs people have been reviewing the code for the last couple of > weeks, and we're almost done. Thanks very much, it looks productive. I'm not sure if I agree exactly with everything but I'll catch up and get back to it. > Unless we'll find anoher issue it > should go into the vfs tree. Given that we don't even have a vfs > tree for .37 yet there's no way we could have put it in earlier anyay.. -- 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
