On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:36:59AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Fellas, > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:29:31PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:04:00AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:56:19PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > they are rebased not to require the inode allocator patchset. I think that Jan > > > > > is also going to repost his 'Fix overallocation in xfs_buf_allocate_memory()' > > > > > based upon Dave's suggestions. It's best not to depend upon that either. What > > > > > do you say, Dave? > > > > > > > > I reorder my local patch set and repost it after running it through > > > > some testing.... > > > > > > Sorry, I totally misunderstood the initial issue - I though Ben had my > > > series applied, and thus yours didn't apply. > > > > No, other way around ;) > > Right. Dave's buffer changes don't apply without Christoph's inode allocator > patchset and Jan's overallocation fix. No, it only requires Jan's buffer allocation fix. I reordered my series on a curent tre here yesterday afternoon, and it applied without conflicts or fuzz on top of jan's patch.... > That'll be great... I too will make reviewing (and testing) these a high > priority. Just keep in mind we don't control Jan's schedule... If that' such a problem, I'll do the one line change and resend it.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
