Myklebust, Trond wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Benny Halevy [mailto:bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:20 AM > To: Jim Rees; Peng Tao; Myklebust, Trond > Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; peter honeyman > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put > > We need to decide on a process here :) > If we would like to maintain a staging tree in front of Trond's then to simplify > merging and rebasing, fixes to code that's already upstream, i.e. in linux-2.6 > or already queued in nfs-2.6, that we decide to send to Trond ahead of > queue need to be queued in front of stuff in the staging tree and the latter > should be rebased on top of them. Unless we're talking about a large merge, I tend to prefer patches. They are much easier to review... I guess the problem is that we now have a patch in Trond's tree that conflicts with the workqueue patch that's staged for later in Benny's tree. I think what I need to do is send Benny a set of patches that starts with the same patch I sent Trond, and follows with one that adds the workqueue. -- 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
