On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:16:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:57:10 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Namjae Jeon (10): > > > fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate > > > xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate > > > > I've pushed these to the following branch: > > > > git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs.git xfs-collapse-range > > > > And so they'll be in tomorrow's linux-next tree. > > > > > ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate > > > > I've left this one alone for the ext4 guys to sort out. > > So presumably that xfs tree branch is now completely stable and so Ted > could just merge that branch into the ext4 tree as well and put the ext4 > part on top of that in his tree. Well, for some definition of stable. Right now it's just a topic branch that is merged into the for-next branch, so in theory it is still just a set of pending changes in a branch in a repo that has been pushed to linux-next for testing. That said, I don't see that branch changing unless we find bugs in the code or a problem with the API needs fixing, at which point I would add more commits to it and rebase the for-next branch that you are pulling into the linux-next tree. Realistically, I'm waiting for Lukas to repost his other pending fallocate changes (the zero range changes) so I can pull the VFS and XFS bits of that into the XFS tree and I can test them together before I'll call the xfs-collapse-range stable and ready to be merged into some other tree... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
