On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 04:57:46PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 11/05/2009 12:09 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > > > I'm assuming Trond's objection is just to the patch changelog > > (specifically, to the statement that any header "should be compilation > > independent"), not to these specific changes. > > > > --b. > > Ping > > Bruce? Trond? whatsup? > > Can Benny put these patches in his tree? He said he would be happy to hold > them for a while, but only if they will be eventually accepted into the > tree as a pnfs pre-requisite. Please ACK on these patches? > > I have to make all these put-the-includes-back patches to just make the tree > compile. They're fine by me. (Can't speak for Trond, but maybe his initial objection would be met just editing the changelog to replace the absolute "Any header should be compilation independent" by the particular advantages you saw in this case.) --b. > > Boaz > -- 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
