On 07/27/2011 01:58 PM, Jim Rees wrote: > But I thought for simplicity since this patchset was reviewed then, I've > tested with this patch and it works good as well. If you are going to > break things up, I can test with the minimal patches and report what is > need in Stable. (Is anyone working on it?) > > We may have over-squashed that one for block layout. I can dig up the > original patches if necessary, but I'm guessing you probably have them. Please do. Because by now I'm confused. the first I discovered it was by git diff of a branch that worked. I lost tracked of where the code was originated from. But Trond just for simplicity sake can't we just submit the patch as is. It is all related to layoutcommit breakage and it is all bits that we eventually need. both objects and blocks (and files when they do segments). I don't think it is that "too bloated" that it can't be sent to stable. What are the risks you are anticipating? Thanks 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
