On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:10:48AM -0400, Andy Adamson wrote: > On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:49 AM, Benny Halevy wrote: >> At any rate, if this is something we need to fix for 4.1 >> and it does not introduce any regression to 4.0, and if >> the fix isn't trivial/simple, I suggest we add a FIXME comment, >> and add it to our todo list to defer the solution post >> this push effort. OK, apologies, it's just takes me much too long to catch up with all of you, and make sure I understand these patches. And I'm conflicted. On the one hand, submission-time gives a really clear point at which to do review and handle any problems found. I'm a little worried that some problems will be forgotten once the code is in. On the other hand, there's a lot of 4.1 development going on and it would be better to see it happening in mainline than out. I don't see any more v2/v3/v4.0 regressions, and people in general seem willing to track and respond to comments. On the other other hand, I do at least want to reassure myself that this is a reasonable basis for further development. I'd like to put off the callback stuff for now, at least: the addition of a mutex held over the callbacks worries me, and interferes with an ongoing attempt to make all the callback code asynchronous. And I haven't tried to review the rpc-level code there yet (and haven't seen review of it from Trond). Would it be possible to get one last revison of the patch series which stops short of the callback stuff (so, the first 32 patches or so), and fixes the trivial-to-fix stuff? And would it be possible to do that by (ulp) tomorrow? --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
