[Sorry, I got an delivery error when the original mail is sent to the mailing list. Cc' to them] On Saturday, September 29, 2012, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 03:27:14PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote: > > > > Until now, I have fixed the bigalloc bug that is reported by xfstest > > #230, and merged Hugh's patch. But I do really think that this patch > > set couldn't be applied at this merge window because the change is not > > *minor*, and it still needs to do more tests. That would be great if > > you can keep this patch set in dev branch at this merge window. Thanks! > > The dev branch is the set of patches that are planned to go to Linus > during the next merge window, so if we drop it from the merge window, > I would drop it from the dev branch and put it in the "unstable" > portion of the patch series. > > It would be a shame to drop it since this provides the SEEK_HOLE > capability, though. Can you say more about which change is not minor? > The change to fix the bigalloc bug? Or the whole patch series? > > Hi Ted, When I try to fix the bigalloc bug, some code that operates on extent status tree and maintains its status are changed when I do some changes in ext4_find_delalloc_range(). So that quite has a lot of changes I thought in the whole patch series. So I think that we'd better drop this patch set from dev branch. Thanks. Regards, Zheng -- 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
