From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v2
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 09:29:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190521012935.GE14268@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a5a08ee7-5bbf-3285-5f02-4f6544770340@kernel.dk>
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 07:20:56PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/20/19 7:17 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:09:39AM +0000, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 5/20/19 5:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> Jens,
> >>>
> >>> is this ok for 5.2? If not we need to hack around the sector
> >>> accounting in nvme, and possibly virtio.
> >>
> >> I'd rather do it right in 5.2, especially if we can get something
> >> acceptable cobbled together this week.
> >
> > If this patchset will be merged to 5.2, please remove the following
> > two lines from patch 1:
> >
> > Fixes: b35ba01ea697 ("nvme: support ranged discard requests")
> > Fixes: 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support")
> >
> >
> > Because the patch 1 doesn't fix them actually.
>
> I don't want to merge something unless you are happy with it as well.
> Are you fine with going this route?
I am fine with this route, and just try to make the commit log not
misleading.
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-21 1:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-16 8:40 fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v2 Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 1/4] block: don't decrement nr_phys_segments for physically contigous segments Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:48 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-16 13:17 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-17 23:02 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-20 11:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 1:04 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 2/4] block: force an unlimited segment size on queues with a virt boundary Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 3/4] block: remove the segment size check in bio_will_gap Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-16 8:40 ` [PATCH 4/4] block: remove the bi_seg_{front,back}_size fields in struct bio Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-16 8:50 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-05-20 11:17 ` fix nr_phys_segments vs iterators accounting v2 Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-21 1:09 ` Jens Axboe
2019-05-21 1:17 ` Ming Lei
2019-05-21 1:20 ` Jens Axboe
2019-05-21 1:29 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2019-05-21 5:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190521012935.GE14268@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).