On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:57:56PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I've updated the patch and pushed out a new pnfsd-for-3.20-4 branch. > > The changes relative to the old one are below: Hi Christoph, with these changes I think this is fine to be merged with the experimental tag attached to it Acked-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> I'm expecting the merge window to open on Monday so it's kinda late to be adding new stuff to the XFS tree and co-ordinating it with the NFS tree merge - how were you planning to get this to merged? I've already merged all but the two pNFSD support patches, so there's some duplicate commits in your pnfsd-for-3.20-4 branch. i.e. these commits in your tree: b8d5187 xfs: factor out a xfs_update_prealloc_flags() helper 6d5ca2a xfs: update the superblock using a synchronous transaction in growfs e3ea93e xfs: pass a 64-bit count argument to xfs_iomap_write_unwritten are already merged into the xfs for-next branch as: 8add71c xfs: factor out a xfs_update_prealloc_flags() helper f8079b8 xfs: growfs should use synchronous transactions d32057f xfs: pass a 64-bit count argument to xfs_iomap_write_unwritten A straight merge from your tree ends up with both sets of commits in the history. So a rebase on your side, or me pulling them into the XFS tree is probably required to keep the history clean. I didn't really want to add any more to the XFS tree this close to the merge window opening, but I've already got a regression fix that needs to be added, so perhaps I'll delay sending Linus a pull request for a week and just merge all of these XFS changes directly. What do you think? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
