On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:26:40AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > Hi Al, > > When you submitted the VFS changes for this merge window, I was hoping > you would include the 'write_inode' branch. I've been waiting for them > in order to push the NFS writeback improvements to Linus. > > Would you be willing to either push the write_inode branch to Linus or > to Ack my doing so as part of the NFS push? Said branch has managed to grow conflicts with XFS commits already in the mainline ;-/ With commits postdating the write_inode ones by a week or so and having the same author. I'm going to push the next VFS pile in about half an hour and get to the write_inode situation. I'm not sure what's the best course here. Note that since you've pulled it, you also have conflicts with what's in the mainline. I can do *another* backmerge (already had one due to gfs2 trivial conflicts) and push the result. Which will suck, since XFS conflicts are not entirely trivial and we'll get a really ugly merge node, with conflict resolution both hidden and not quite obvious. Or I can do a new branch, put updated pair of patches there (hch has sent the updated variants my way) and ask you to rebuild NFS tree. Which will also suck, since it adds PITA for you and you are completely innocent in that clusterfuck. Suggestions? I'd love to get out of that mess with minimal PITA for everyone involved and minimally messed tree... One thing for sure - I'm not going to do that kind of "guaranteed to be unchanged" shared branches again, TYVM. -- 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
