On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:28PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:29:01AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The patches look sane. Does the dio change conflict with the > > work Al is doing right now of the direct IO path, or will > > marshalling that part of the change through the XFS tree be fine? > > I've not seen any changes in that area in Al's trees. That being said > I don't think this little flag should cause any major problems as we'll > have to pass the flags argument in some form of direct I/O method for > all the other quirks we have. Shouldn't be a problem; there might be textual conflicts, but seeing that XFS tree is much less likely to be rebased, I can just pull from it once it gets to those. -- 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
