> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Rees [mailto:rees@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:05 PM > To: Myklebust, Trond > Cc: Benny Halevy; Peng Tao; linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; peter honeyman > Subject: Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: add missing rpc_put_mount and path_put > > 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. Yes. That's the other good feature of patches: the onus of fixing up conflicts is on you and not on me... :-) Trond -- 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
