Hi! On Mon 09-05-16 21:28:06, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > On Mon, 2016-04-18 at 23:35 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > I've noticed that patches 1 through 12 of your series are relatively > independent, and are probably more stable than the remaining part of > the series that actually changes locking. Yes. > My dax error handling series also depends on the patches that change > zeroing in DAX (patches 5, 6, 9). > > To allow the error handling stuff to move faster, can we split these > into two patchsets? > > I was hoping to send the dax error handling series through the nvdimm > tree, and if you'd like, I can also prepend your patches 1-12 with my > series. So I'm thinking how to best merge this. There are some ext4 patches which are not trivial (mainly "ext4: Refactor direct IO code"). These can go in as far as I'm concerned but there is a potential for conflicts in ext4 tree and I'd definitely want to give them full test run in the ext4 tree. The best what I can think of is to pull ext4 related changes into a stable branch in ext4 tree and then pull that branch into nvdimm tree. Ted, what do you think? If you agree, I can separate the patches into three parts - one for ext4 tree, stable patches for nvdimm tree, and then remaining patches. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
