On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:23:50PM +0100, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:12 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:45:59PM +0100, Tigran Mkrtchyan wrote: > >> From: Tigran Mkrtchyan <kofemann@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> The same as v6, expect that the last patch changes current_stateid > >> in compoind from reference to a value. As patches have to be squashed > >> anyway > > > > Why? > > for me none of them makes sense alone. But, of course, you have your own rules. I think it's a little easier to read them as they are. As long as it compiles, and doesn't oops, at each step of the way, we're fine. (OK, so it's buggy to support current stateid for some of these operations but not all of them--but it was also buggy not to support current stateid at all, so we're not making things any worse along the way....) > > > > > If it's really only possible as a single big patch I'd actually rather > > have it submitted that way.... > > > >> this aproach is simple that re-write all. > > > > Fine, but #10 doesn't seem to have made it to my mailbox or to the list? > > Ha! turned out that 000*.patch does not include 0010-X.patch :-D Ah-hah! Thanks. --b. -- 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
